Triangulation
Ever hear of a relational term called “triangulation?” Essentially it is where person A has a
problem with person B. Instead of person
A talking with person B – which is the proper course of action – person A talks
about person B with person C. Of course,
person C is usually chosen because of their genuine desire to relieve stress
and produce harmony, so person C typically agrees to talk to person B on person
A’s behalf.
What has actually just happened on a relational level,
however, is that person A gets to walk away knowing that all of the stress of
the problem is now in another person’s hands (person C’s, to be exact). Person C walks away with all the stress, and
usually upon talking with person B new stress develops between person B and
person C. Person C slowly comes to an
understanding of how they have gotten all the stress and begins to resent it,
bringing the conflict back into their relationship with person A. Soon person C – who was brought in because
they were just being a “good guy” – ends up at odds with both person A and
person B. Typically what happens is that
since person A transferred all their stress to person C, person A and person B
get back close together and person C fades from the friendship. It is a very common and unfortunate
relational dynamic into which I try hard to struggle against falling.
The reason I talk about this here is because this is the common
misunderstanding of the work of a leader – and it is precisely what Moses is
asked to do in this passage. Moses is
essentially person C in the triangle.
Person A is God, who has a problem with the Hebrews (person B). However, Moses very adeptly maneuvers his way
through the triangle. Here’s how he does
it.
First, Moses is honest with God (person A). Moses accepts the role as liaison, but he is
honest with God about how he is reacting to God’s plan. Moses acknowledges that God is right in
understanding the Hebrew people as rebellious and stiff-necked. However, Moses then goes beyond the
recognition of God’s judgment and rationalizes God into a place of ownership of
the people. Essentially, Moses is
careful to effect what appears to be a change in God’s position. Then, of course, Moses does exactly what God
expects of him and relates to the people.
Moses does not assume responsibility for God’s anger, simply the task of
informing the Hebrews that God is angry.
Now, I know this is a very shaky discussion because it can
easily slip into a debate on “Did Moses change God’s mind” or “How just is
Moses to argue with God?” In fact, the
case can clearly be made that this moment right here is ultimately the reason
that he doesn’t get to see the Promised Land. If Moses had allowed God to go ahead with the
plan and smite the unfaithful – just like Noah did with the flood – then Moses
probably wouldn’t have struck the rock a second time (see Numbers 20:10-13) and
incurred God’s wrath upon him. I don’t
want to slip too far into that argument.
Rather, I want to focus on Moses’ task as mediator.
What Moses does here is mediate, but not to actually solve
any problems. At the end of the day,
Moses has mediated God’s attitude towards the people – but the people are still
rebellious. Moses didn’t take on any
unnecessary responsibility for the people and their actions. That helps Moses stay as a successful
mediator rather than a person who gets “triangled” into a problem. Moses doesn’t believe that he can fix
anything. Rather, he can simply mediate
between the parties with whom there is discord.
In the end, I have a great deal of respect for Moses in this
passage. I know it is difficult to be
the mediator between God’s people and God – or between any two people, for that
matter! Moses very easily could have
gotten himself in a triangle – and by all rights should have. But he mediates without assuming any
responsibility and effective change ensues – for a while, at least.
The Presence of God
As far as the story about Moses seeing God’s presence, this
is indeed an interesting story. First,
we need to understand that the word used here to describe God’s “back” (as if
God has a front and a back – or worse yet, as if God has a blind-spot!) can be also
thought of as the “after effect.” The Hebrew
word can indeed mean back when used in reference to a human, so I’m not saying
the translation is poor. Rather, I am
saying that to think of it as God’s back is just too simple. Thinking of God’s back is like thinking about
the backside of a thunderstorm.
Thunderstorms have an after effect. There is dampness in the air when a storm has
passed by. There is a smell of freshness
abounding in the air when the storm moves on.
There might be limbs down. If it
is during the day, there is often a reddish hue in the sky. That is the “backside” of the storm. In much the same way, Moses gets to see God’s
back side. Moses gets to see the after
effects of what the world looks like when God’s presence has drawn so close. I can only imagine what Moses saw, but I’m
sure it was indeed a sight to behold!
Just as the world seems so much more alive right after a storm passes
through, so it must have been even more when God passed by!
I hope you have enjoyed this chapter and learned a little
bit about group dynamics, leadership, and the presence of God.
<><
No comments:
Post a Comment