The Irony of “Are You Teachable?”: When Leaders Demand What They Rarely Model

 

Doug Winnail shared a message titled “Are You Teachable?” the other day. It presents teachability as one of the most important qualities God seeks in Christians and future leaders in the Kingdom of God. Using familiar biblical examples: Abraham responding to God’s call (Genesis 12:1–4), Moses described as very humble (Numbers 12:3), David repeatedly asking God to “teach me Your statutes” (Psalm 119), Solomon requesting wisdom (1 Kings 3:9), and Jesus blessing the meek and poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3–5). He then goes on to add—Christians who are called to reign with Christ must cultivate a desire and willingness to listen, learn, and be molded.

On the surface, this is standard Christian exhortation. Humility and openness to correction are indeed biblical virtues. The problem arises when such a message comes from an organization whose culture and leadership style have long been criticized for demanding precisely these traits from ordinary members while higher-ups often appear exempt.

Living Church of God maintains a top-down structure of church government. Members are repeatedly instructed to be submissive, respectful of the ministry, and ready to receive correction. Sermons and articles frequently stress “servant leadership” and warn against self-will or questioning established authority. Yet accounts from former members describe a different reality on the ground: pastors and leaders who come across as entitled or controlling, who isolate members or discourage independent contact with other congregations, and who expect unquestioning loyalty even when their own conduct falls short. One former attendee described a local pastor and his wife as “completely absorbed with themselves, very arrogant and entitled,” with members told they must respect the pastor regardless of behavior because “God will judge him.” Control extended to limiting visits to other LCG congregations and Bible studies. Nepotism and the sense that certain families operate under different rules have also been noted in critiques of the organization.

This creates a one-way street. The sheeple are expected to remain humble and teachable—open to molding by God through the church hierarchy. Leadership, by contrast, frequently positions itself as the channel of that molding rather than subject to the same scrutiny. When members raise concerns about arrogance, inconsistency, or heavy-handedness, the response often frames the issue as the member’s lack of submission or spiritual maturity rather than an opportunity for leaders to model the teachability they preach.

LCG literature does affirm the ideal of Christ-like servant leadership and humility, citing passages such as Matthew 20:25–28 and 2 Timothy 2:24–25. Leaders have publicly rejected “dictatorial or harsh” approaches and called for growth in love and service. Yet the gap between stated ideals and reported experience is a recurring theme among those who have left. In hierarchical systems that claim unique fidelity to “God’s government,” admitting error or receiving correction from below can feel existentially threatening. The safer path becomes reinforcing the expectation that members must stay teachable while leadership remains largely insulated.

The biblical figures Winnail cites were not insulated. Moses faced challenges and correction. David was rebuked by Nathan. Solomon’s later life showed the consequences of failing to remain teachable. Jesus Himself modeled radical humility. When a church organization constantly instructs its people to cultivate these qualities while its own higher ranks are widely perceived as resistant to the same standard, the message lands as hypocritical.

Teachability is valuable. A willingness to listen, learn, and change is essential for any genuine spiritual growth. But it cannot be a virtue demanded only downward. If God is truly looking for leaders who are moldable, the test applies first and most stringently to those already in positions of influence. Otherwise, calls for humility become tools of control rather than invitations to shared discipleship.

Members of any church—LCG included—would do well to examine not only whether they are teachable, but whether the system they support allows its leaders the same freedom to be corrected, to admit shortcomings, and to grow. Without that mutual accountability, the rhetoric of meekness and teachability rings hollow.

Are You Teachable? One of the most important qualities that God is looking for in Christians and future leaders in the Kingdom of God is teachability—the desire and willingness to listen, learn, and be molded by God. Abraham was teachable and responsive to God’s instructions (Genesis 12:1–4). Moses was a very capable leader, yet he was also humble and teachable (Numbers 12:3). David’s attitude is evident in his multiple requests for God to “teach me Your statutes” (Psalm 119:12, 26, 33). Solomon recognized his own human inadequacies when he asked God for the wisdom that he needed to rule God’s people wisely (1 Kings 3:9). When Jesus said the meek and poor in spirit will be blessed, He was referring to their teachability and their willingness to learn and grow in knowledge of God’s ways (Matthew 5:3–5). We have been called to reign with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of God—and being teachable is one of the keys to attaining that reward.

Have a profitable Sabbath,

Douglas S. Winnail