We all want to see clearly. In fact, I often believe I do see clearly. It’s easy to believe that I have considered all the options, have waded through the various competing values, and have arrived at an unbiased, seeing-clearly assessment of whatever is going on with the situation at hand. Unfortunately, that’s not usually the full story.
When KLC teaches about the act of leadership, they teach that “exercising leadership requires you to question your and others’ assumptions about what is really going on, digging deeply beneath the issue to uncover the real competing values and complexities at hand.” One element of this hard work is to consider multiple interpretations. For me, it often starts by saying “I wonder about...” or “what if...” It’s usually not complete until I’ve also asked others for their perspective on the challenge at hand, hearing their interpretations through the lens of “what if they see more clearly than I?”
Scripture has some really great examples of what it looks like when one does NOT approach challenges this way. Consider the antagonists in the Gospels – the religious authorities known as Pharisees. They had a very important function within Judaism – to help the community maintain purity with an emphasis on personal piety. Throughout the accounts of the Gospels, it is clear that they interpret Jesus and his actions as threats. The story contains only a very few accounts of them considering other interpretations. One such story is when Jesus healed a man who was blind from birth (John 9). This story is both humorous and tragic (not unlike work on adaptive challenges!)
After Jesus healed the man and the Pharisees questioned that man about his sight, some of the Pharisees maintained their singular interpretation – that Jesus was not from God. Others challenged that assumption with an insightful, evidence- based question. Apparently, the momentum of the former group was too much to overcome. But how might the story have changed if all those Pharisees had actually considered and tested this alternate interpretation? While this question itself may pose a threat to our theology, I hope the point is not lost that because they were unwilling to entertain multiple interpretations, someone ended up being crucified – a result that ought to give us pause when approaching an adaptive challenge!
Early church history might also have had a different outcome if a group of Pharisees in another story had acted differently. The story, found in Acts 5:12ff, recounts Peter and the apostles before a group of Pharisees, answering for their actions done in the name of Jesus. While the group wanted to put the apostles to death, one Pharisee named Gamaliel was able to suggest an alternate interpretation of the events. His voice was persuasive enough to allow time for that interpretation to be tested, sparing the lives of Peter and the apostles and ultimately giving us the rest of the amazing account in Acts.
To begin to see an adaptive challenge clearly, let us hold and test multiple interpretations, which will likely begin with “what if...”
--Todd Lehman