In the strategic management literature, a basic temporal paradox is created: on the one hand, the strategic manager is believed to operate in a world of change and flux. On the other hand, the core strategic objective is to make decisions that create a better future platform for the business. Essentially, the strategic manager is expected to predict the future; yet this is an expectation that only works under the assumption that the world moves in a somewhat orderly and linear fashion. The great conundrum is that while this temporal paradox underlies all strategic practices, then why don't more strategic processes break down? In this paper, I will develop a tentative answer to this question. Theoretically, the answer is motivated by Niklas Luhmann's argument that paradoxes can, at best, be made invisible or in Luhmann's term 'deparadoxified'. Empirically, the answer is developed in the context of a broader narrative about 'meaning' in organisations and my basic claim is that this meaning trend provides a framework for a deparadoxification strategy that draws on semantics and logics developed in a religious context. Concretely, I will show how this type of religious deparadoxification is applied by three Danish CEOs