Anarchy
Grandpappy never cared much for rules. Picking corn and healing folks on days he wasn’t supposed to. Hanging out with women of ill-repute. Telling one such woman who’d been caught in the act of adultery and, according to the rules, was deserving of death that He, of all people, did not condemn her. And when the sourpusses tried to turn his wild disregard for regulations against Him by asking if folks should pay their taxes (expecting He’d say "no" of course and get Himself in bad with the local deputies), all he had to say was, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s," and that shut them up right quick.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, "Look here, GC, when your Grandpappy pardoned that woman He also told her to go and sin no more. That sounds like he was pretty concerned about the rules to me!"
Of course, now I just have to point out that that’s where you’re wrong. Grandpappy couldn’t have cared less about the law. What he cared about was the woman. He was giving her advice that would benefit her, if only it saved her from being stoned the next time when Grandpappy might not be around to get her out of trouble.
You see, what humanity never seems to understand is that the law has always been intended to help people, not hurt them. The biggest problem humans have always had is finding some means to an end and then turning it into an end in itself. Religions are famous for this. A particular ritual or sacrament is invented so as to bring people who practice the rite into greater communion with God. It is a means to an end. But pretty soon, how the rite is performed, where, and by whom becomes all-important and the purpose of the rite is forgotten. Soon after that, anyone who does not perform the rite correctly (or at all) is hopelessly evil and lost. Soon after that, hate takes over, and you don’t have to be Yoda to know where that leads.
What Grandpappy tried to get people to understand was that if you love one another there doesn’t need to be any laws. Folks who love each other don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t covet the possessions of their neighbors, don’t wreck homes, don’t lie, and they sure don’t sass their folks. That’s six of the Ten Commandments right there, not in any particular order.
Of course, the first objection to all of this is to say that we don’t live in a perfect world. It isn’t all full of loving people who don’t need laws. There are plenty of folks who would commit all kinds of crimes if the threat of punishment that spins off from the law wasn’t there to hold them in check. It would seem that a society without laws that looks lawful anyway just can’t ever happen, not on this planet at least.
I suppose I could take some space here to go into all the anarchist theories and which ones will work and not work and what we really need to do to try them out, but there really isn’t a point. Because the truth of the matter is that anarchy is already the standard by which groups of humans conduct their corporate lives.
This isn’t a surprising revelation when one considers that a fundamental characteristic of human beings is that they have choices. No law or proclamation can really take those choices away. They always exist. No person or group of persons can claim power over another person or group of persons without securing the permission of the ones being subjugated (albeit many times via the threat of coercion). At no point does law actually rule. For those who are loving will do what is right regardless of the law. Those who hate will do what is wrong regardless of the law. And the folks in between will keep to themselves until someone gets them riled up. All the law is good for is justifying the creation of a subculture of surveillance, seizure, and incarceration. It doesn’t deter crime. It only punishes it.
Or rather, AT BEST that’s all it does. At worst it becomes a tool for usurpers of power to use against those who believe they are powerless. Laws prohibiting theft, for example, do more to serve the interests of the rich than the interests of the poor, and not just because the rich have more that needs protecting. What the law rarely ever admits is that hoarding is a kind of theft. Accumulating vast wealth on the backs of folks much poorer than you is theft. Exploiting labor is theft. If our laws treated these crimes the same way it treats those perpetrated by impoverished convenience store crooks then our world would look a lot different compared to now.
What if legalizing theft only lead to billionaires being reduced to millionaires while the number of people languishing in poverty decreased? Wouldn’t the poor folks just be claiming for themselves that which the billionaires had improperly hoarded in the first place?
Of course, the great myth about anarchy is that it is tantamount to mass chaos and destruction. A lesser, but similar, myth is that no authority whatsoever would be allowed in an anarchistic environment. But both of these myths can be dispelled with one sentence. That sentence is, "Imagine your workplace without bosses."
Not just without managers, mind you, but without those people who constantly think they know more about what needs to be done than you do. I’m willing to bet that nine out of ten people who read this article work for an organization where people in authority only get in the way. If you can imagine your workplace running like a well-oiled machine when the bosses are gone, then you can imagine a world where anarchy gets the job done.
Because whether you can imagine it or not, anarchy is how things get done in this world. Everybody knows that when anything great happens that involves a lot of people working together, it’s almost always in spite of the folks who tried to control it. And if the managers ever deserve credit, it’s always because they knew when to shut up and get out of the way. All the governments and corporations and institutions in the world who think they’re accomplishing things are only kidding themselves. Any such entity only produces valuable things in proportion to how much anarchy it allows. But the more anarchy it allows, the more obvious is its utter irrelevance.
So you won’t see me very often being much of an activist for anarchy, because as far as I can tell it’s already running things just fine. What you may see me advocate, though, is for folks to step up, make their own choices (and not somebody else’s), then stand back and let anarchy work its magic. Because I’m pretty certain Grandpappy wouldn’t have it any other way.
delicious
diggDo What?
And once again, I really don't know what to say...or where to begin.
I guess I will start out saying that I see where you're coming from. I get it. You made your point. Legalism= Bad(black); Love=Good(white).
But you are so extreme sometimes. You take something that is "white" and you color it "black", in effort to make your point appear whiter, when it isn't necessary. I mean, there's a time for dualistic thinking, but this isn't it. So needless to say, I see things from a different perspective, especially regarding the law.
You stated that Jesus couldn't have cared less about the law. After all He cared about the woman. So you imply that because Jesus is more concerned about people than the law, that He doesn't care about God's law at all? Seems to me He cares about both. He doesn't have to disregard one in order to care about the other.
Do you see the purpose of the law? Do you understand why God gave us the law? Seems to me that Jesus, the son of God, would care about the law, simply because His Father cares about it. I can't imagine Jesus not caring about something that God found so important and necessary to give us. C'mon you have to agree with that logic...
So GC, what do you think the point of the law is? Why did God give us the law in the first place? Do you seriously think this is it:
"All the law is good for is justifying the creation of a subculture of surveillance, seizure, and incarceration. It doesn’t deter crime. It only punishes it."
Sorry GC, you are wrong, that is not all the law is good for. And I have a feeling, you realize this! You know that isn't true. You know that isn't why God gave us the law! So why make the law out to be such a negative thing? Especially when it is from God? The law is not what you are against, it's something else...what is it?
I guess I will stop here. I didn't even get to the whole "anarchy" issue. Don't worry, I will address it soon enough... :)
The Sabbath was made for man
Well, BG, not to be brash, but I'm going to have to disagree with you... I don't think you know where the GC is coming from if you call this post black/white or dualistic in discussing what the law is or what the law is meant to do. It's much more subtle.
The post itself answers your questions: "what do you think the point of the law is? Why did God give us the law in the first place?"
"the law has always been intended to help people, not hurt them".
To take a specific example that I think illustrates this in the Bible. (The verse alluded to when GC mentions "Picking corn and healing folks on days he wasn’t supposed to. "
Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Think about that sentence for a bit - keeping the sabbath holy is one of the 10 commandments. Man wasn't put here to follow the rules, the rules were made because they assist mankind in living a joyous life. These same rules that can be summarized by "Love one another" (it was Jesus' new command). I think it's inferred that by doing this a person will be keeping all the laws of God.... not that suddenly the old laws are "unimportant". In my opinion - Nothing really is different in the Old Testament vs. the New... it's man's understanding or lack of it that is the reason God has to keep explaining it all in different ways.
I don't see where in this post that the GC is making the law out to be "a negative thing" at all.
You ask: The law is not what you are against, it's something else...what is it?
It's what humans have done with the God's law (or any law really) that sucks and is what I see being addressed.
Let's take this big scary sentence: "All the law is good for is justifying the creation of a subculture of surveillance, seizure, and incarceration."
This is what humans do with laws.
The point being made is that- "It (the law) doesn’t deter crime. It only punishes it."
I think the Bible makes this point as well: 2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
This is a very interesting passage, and it discusses the 10 commandments vs the new covenant. To me it discusses "the rules" (letter) vs "the reason for the rules" (Spirit). Think of this in relation to the rules of a household. You tell a child never to touch the burner on a stove perhaps because they may not understand that the element could be hot and they might injure themselves. The rule was made because the parent does not want the child to get hurt. You make the rule simple enough to promote understanding - perhaps to cover even the simplest child in the household, but there are subtleties that would render adhering to the rule unnecessary (it's not that the rule is unimportant, just invalid in that situation). Perhaps the child has grown a couple of years and has a sophisticated understanding of how the burner works - they touch the burner because they know it's off. By our easy to understand rules they should be punished for touching the burner. But wouldn't putting that child in a time out for the "principal of it" be forgetting the whole reason the rule was there for in the first place? ...Not to punish, but to guide?
2nd: "The law is there to help people not hurt them"
Now let me address the statement:
"The law is there to help people not hurt them"
The statement is true, but it is quite vague. I am just trying to be more specific. The law is there to help, yes, but help people do what exactly? Learn good morals? Know right from wrong? Live a good life? Get along with others? Is the law just about how we live our life here on earth? While all of these reasons are actual benefits to knowing the law, they are not the primary purpose. Just consider for a moment the importance of the law in regards to our eternal life?
You see, while the points that you and the GC made may be true,you are still leaving out the most important aspect regarding the law...God's perspective! While we explain our own perspectives and opinions about the law, the only one that truly matters is God's perspective! And it is critical that we see His perspective! I cannot stress enough how important this is! After all, where we spend eternity depends on it!
I think we agree that the law is simply a teacher. However, what we say it is actually teaching us is where we differ. One perspective is that the law is to inspire us how to act and live; while the other perspective is that the law is to enlighten us and bring awareness that in spite of our good efforts, we do not and cannot measure up to God's standard. The purpose of the Law is simply to show us our sinful condition and our need for a savior to reconcile us to God.
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith" Galations 3:24
And let me clarify that a person is NOT required to keep the Law to be saved. No one can do that! So what seems then to be hopeless, is really just a means for us to see our need for a savior and point us to the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which is the ONLY remedy for sin (1 Peter 1:18,19) The Law of God shows us or wicked condition, and our need for the savior Jesus Christ.
Most people compare themselves to others who are worse than they are (in man's eyes, that is) instead of properly comparing themselves to God's Law. They are looking horizontally, instead of vertically. They ought to be comparing themselves to a Holy God, instead of sinful men. If they'd compared themselves to God's Law, it would show them their sinful condition. This is the only way to be saved.
Jesus wants us to view ourselves and our sin nature in the correct perspective, that is, in God's perspective...not man's perspective. This is so so very critical in regards to salvation! How can one be saved if they don't even realize they need to be saved?
You could argue, that there are earthly situations and circumstances that a person doesn't have to be aware of their need to be saved in order for them to be rescued. Such as someone that is passed out from smoke inhalation or perhaps unconscious from almost drowning. Yes, someone can save them without their cooperation or even acknowledgment. BUT in regards to spiritual salvation, God requires that we participate in the process by choosing to accept His free gift of Salvation. We must acknowledge it and cooperate so to speak. I don't know what else to say about that except, that is just how it is. I don't know how someone who truly recognized their need to be saved, would choose to reject it, but people do and it breaks my heart! How much more does it break God's heart? The only reason I can think of is that they don't want to change their behavior (repent) or they don't believe it's true.
Well, if you want to be saved, you must first acknowledge your need to be saved and then repent- agree with God about your sin and turn from it, call on the name of Jesus to save you.
"For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." -Romans 10:13
Remember that Jesus kept the law and expected His disciples to do the same. He made clear His attitude about anyone diminishing one iota from the law. Anyone not keeping it is only using the good name of Christ without doing what He said.
He warns us: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23).
Perspective
I'm going to try to overlook everything that offends me about this post and just try to get to the point. But I will say - Neither you nor I through the quoting of Bible verses or anything else can "prove" that your perspective, the GC's perspective, or my perspective on this matter is more "Godlike" or "closer to the truth".
I'm not sure if you were trying to describe in any way, shape or form my position on this - but if you were... you're not quite there yet. I'm not really sure how to clarify my position to you... but to be fair... I'm also not sure if you're interested in clarification. That doesn't really bother me, mind you...
I'm just a little confused by what I perceive as an arguementative tone to your post ... and I'll admit that's only my interpretation of what you're saying, so correct me if I'm off base. I'm not really interested in arguing about "what God's law is for" - you don't know my opinion, because I didn't offer it. I was only trying to be helpful in explaining things you didn't seem to understand about what the blog article was trying to say. You were asking questions about something that I felt like I understood.
BUT - If the point is that you just want to vent or state your case about how you feel about the tone of the GC's post - that just wasn't clear to me at first. I've got nothing to say about that. To me - it's just your opinion. I've already made my opinion clear about what I disagree with - concerning whether it obfuscates the truth or not. If you're trying to change my mind, I'm just not convinced, ... but that may be because I'm finding it very difficult to follow your train of thought.
If there is some other point you're wanting to discuss with me - you'll have to be more specific ... because I'm honestly lost. I don't know where you're coming from. I'm all for reaching an understanding if that's possible. But I'm also ok if there's really nothing else you want to discuss with me. No skin off my nose.
First, let me address GC's statement...
Hi DL!
Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
First let me address why I didn't like GC's statement that Jesus couldn't have cared less about the law...when in fact, Jesus cares very much about the law. I DO get the underlying point of what GC was saying, but it doesn't mean that the way he explained it is right. I think he should be careful how he words things, especially in regards to Jesus and what Jesus cares about. Statements about Jesus are a big deal to me. I know we could all say, "Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what he means." - and just "Let it go", but why? I know there are times when we should just let things go, but this wasn't one of those times for me. Why? Because it would seem like settling to me and when it comes to the "truth" - I don't settle. It should be clear and accurate. Everyone should say what they mean and mean what we say. And GC of all people would absolutely agree with that.
And the fact remains that Jesus cares about the law! Don't imply that it is not important by stating that Jesus couldn't care less about it. Simple as that.Well I think it was clear
Well I think it was clear that the way the GC worded things rubbed you the wrong way... I just disagree with you on the clarity/"truth" of this post. I didn't get hung up on the things you did, obviously. Why? you might ask... because I felt his position was clarified later. It's that simple. I waited until I heard the whole story before I judged what I thought the message was.
If we're talking precise - the statement I was addressing was your accusation:
I guess I will start out saying that I see where you're coming from. I get it. You made your point. Legalism= Bad(black); Love=Good(white).
But you are so extreme sometimes. You take something that is "white" and you color it "black", in effort to make your point appear whiter, when it isn't necessary. I mean, there's a time for dualistic thinking, but this isn't it. So needless to say, I see things from a different perspective, especially regarding the law.
That to me does not describe the GC or this post in any way that I am aware. I always get bothered when it sounds like someone is putting words in someone else's mouth - to me it was clear if this really was your issue that you didn't know what the GC was trying to say. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to speak for the GC. I frankly think that's a little presumptious. The GC can speak for the GC.
So if I understand you correctly now - you are more subtlely trying to say that you feel the lighthearted tone of the GC's post obscures the truth somehow. That makes a little more sense seeing as I still can't fathom the GC as being deliberately manipulative or deceptive. There are a lot of people who write into this site with that complaint - that these topics should be covered in a "more reverent tone" for whatever reason. I do respect your opinion, but I respectfully suggest that you ought to be careful what you label as "clear and accurate" as your opinions on this are a product of your perception as well.
I am deeply deeply sorry!
Dear GC,
I feel terrible, absolutely terrible! I owe you a serious apology for the tone of some of my comments about you. I am aware, as DL pointed out, that I basically implied that you were manipulative and deceptive in the way you worded things. That was very wrong of me to imply that and I deeply regret doing that. I'm so sorry. Will you please forgive me and accept my apology?
Dear DL,
I agree with you that the GC can speak for himself. It bothers me that you think I feel entitled to speak for him. I certainly do not feel entitled to speak for him...not at all. I did not mean to come across as presumptuous. I simply stated something that I thought the GC would agree with me on...that's all.
Again, please know that I regret the tone of some of my comments and I am deeply sorry.
Hey no worries!
I just don't follow you the way you word things is all. I'm certain I'm misunderstanding - you just told me so ... but I just get the impression that you are one of those people I (personally) would need to talk to in person to get the whole message. Conversing online can be hard - I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - as I hope you will me. Some things you said just needed clarification for me is all.
Thank you for the clarification.
Thanks DL!
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. And yes, I am most likely someone that you would need to talk to in person to get the whole picture. Typed words just don't cut it sometimes in accurately presenting my point of view. Body language and tone help. Oh well...
Thanks again for recognizing this.
Institutionalized laws, Natural laws
I think BG that what the GC is talking about is institutionalized laws imposed from the top down rather than laws that develop out of group consensus on how to behave. I think I see the latter as almost the same thing as natural laws as they develop naturally out of human interaction. For example, the golden rule seems to show up in all cultures/religions--maybe because we humans are naturally reciprocal creatures.
Somewhat tangentially, I've just started a book called "Nothing Sacred" which proposes that Judaism be thought of as an "open source" religion--for example Abraham's smashing of idols and an unnameable God being about a God who is not static and imposed (by the priests) but personal. There's a definition of Open Source Religions here which I think fits in with some of what the GC is saying about anarchy: Open Source.
There was a discussion on the Abuse of Power thread on hate crime which clarified some of this for me--I'll c&p one of the GC's responses about deterrence:
"The neighborhood I live in, for example. No robberies, muggings, or murders in the four years I've lived here. And I'm pretty certain if I went door-to-door and asked each household why this was so, none of them would say, 'Well, I've wanted to kill people in this neighborhood but, you know, it's against the law.'
Based upon my careful studies of history I have no reason to believe that, before written laws came into being, human societies were mired in chaos. So I'd say, yes, I have known of many societies that functioned perfectly well without written, 'immutable' laws. Well, at least they ran as well as they do now, and in some cases I think the argument could be made that they ran better 'back in the day'."
Open Source
Wow - that is an interesting tangent. I'm not sure what to think of it. Initially, I have to admit that when I read this:
In comparison to traditional religions - which are considered authoritarian, hierarchical, and change-resistant - they emphasize participation, self-determination, decentralization, and evolution.
I found that very intriguing. I was leery of this part:
their systems of beliefs are created through a continuous process of refinement and dialogue among the believers themselves.
...thinking about "group mentality". I'm not sure shifting the authority to the group solves the whole problem. Consensus does not make the truth. But I don't know the "structure" of the church or lack thereof.... so I guess I'd have to read more about it.
That being said... I think it sounds congruent to what I believe - which is that religion is always changing because people are always changing. My perspective is that religion is the conversation the individual has with their spiritual identity. Different people need different instructions and sometimes told in different ways in order to find the truth.
The one good thing I can take from the dialogue aspect of this post - would be that if looked at in the most altruistic of lights - it can be simply a social meeting of the minds on what people believe to be true. By stating the conversation is with "believers" it can be taken to assume good intentions and the like... and it seems like kind of a going through life's trials together sort of thing. I think both science and faith prove that humans need a support system or network in order to thrive.
Open Source Judaism
DL, I've just started Rushkoff's book "Nothing Sacred"--I'll give an excerpt from the preface to maybe give you more of a sense than that brief Wiki entry:
"The Jewish restriction on 'graven images' is a measure intended to promote transparency. Like the early Internet which was too slow to render pictures, Judaism is a 'text only' religion. As a result, also like the early Internet, Jewish law and legend is as easy to write as it is to read--the very definition of transparency. It is a two-way set of texts, continually annotated by its readers. The annotations judged most succesful by the greater community become part of the religion's core code--just as in the shareware software development community. Images are forbidden, because they can so easily become sacred in their own right.
Further, Jewish rituals require community participation. The Torah scorll cannot even be read unless ten people--a minyan--are present. Study is not a private encounter with a sacred and imposing text, but a group experience, in which discussion is encouraged and insights are shared. This was a safeguard against isolation and its destructive impact...."
[the following is in response to the events of 9/11]:
"But, as we'll see, religions aren't necessarily functioning at their best when they provide pat answers to life's biggest questions. Judaism, in particular, favors open-ended inquirey over unilateral decrees...
The challenge to Jews, and to all thinking people, is to resist the temptation to fall into yet another polarized, nationalist, or, God forbid, holy posture. As we've learned from new media, narratives serve our best interest only when we deconstruct their coercive 'magic' and take responsibility for co-creating them...The experiences gained and insights gleaned after three thousand years of spiritual and ethical debating can offer anyone clear alternatives to the overly concretized narratives that are failing the world today...It's time to wake up from the stories we've been telling ourselves and invent a new one."
anarchy
Hey BG (I was going to get to this article, I see you already have, heh) I think you ask some good questions there. And GC, you *are* an extremist, which is my type of thinkin'. 
Perhaps I shouldn't be speaking for him but, you know, I was planning on reading this article anyway, so... I don't think GC is implying that man-made laws are the same as the groundwork that God supports. God's law are the ten commandments. One can argue that, hypothetically, when those laws are reinforced with the 7 billion people that consume this planet, it would make for an overall successful anarchist camaraderie and improve the evil that lurks in the the mind of the business men, terrorism, and in general, men around the world... thus making for a better world. Not so easy to come by, though, obviously. I don't think God approves of the law humans have inforced, though I can imagine that He supports them, logically, in terms of guiding society along the right path. But I think He would sooner have it to where the man-made laws be discarded *because* an anarchy lifestyle wouldn't require law. Businesses, authority, managers, are there to make decisions based on a company whose true value is money. While having money is very useful, the evil that comes with that when taken advantage of clouds up in any anarchist outlook.
Now, I agree that inforcing laws DOES and have deter some crime. You see all the time crime-rates have gone down in particular cities. But is that a result of law inforcement or the natural flow and fluctuation of events in a particular time of the year and/or city just as the opposite affect that crime-rates go up as well?
I think he's trying to point out the inconsistencies and problems that man-made law itself creates. Of course God wants us to follow these rules... admittingly so, I'm sure that having a law is better than having none at this time but I don't think inforcing law really makes for a better, safer world in general... despite the attempt. Unfortunately, starting from a clean slate is a long shot.
Universal Ethical Principles/ Ethics as Process
Two books that I'm currently reading both had passages about how ethical principles are constructed. One was talking about the development of universal principles regarding ethics during the Enlightenment (specifically Kant's and Bentham's), the other was describing the role of the law in the Torah. The two set up an interesting contrast I thought.
First the passage about the Enlightenment taken from "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom" by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt says that what Kant and Bentham had in common was a desire to find a single universal ethical principle--and in so doing they were applying the same model to ethics that the Enlightenment was generally to Science. Kant found this principle in the categorical imperative--the idea that rules guiding one's own actions must be thought of in terms of whether they could be applied universally (deontology); Bentham in the idea that any law must create the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism). Kant's idea tends to favor the rights of the individual while Bentham's the right of the group. What both have in common is that moral decision making is based on reason (not intuition or feeling)and on the abstract rather than the particular.
And the other is a passage from "Nothing Sacred" by Douglas Rushkoff (who I mentioned below as well): "Social Justice...cannot be accomplished by following a blanket decree. The dictates themselves would merely become the new idols. Jews would end up worshiping the laws instead of enacting the liberties they were meant to express. In Judaism, the oral law--the ever-expanding commentaries, the Talmud, and the midrash--are considered just as holy as the written law given to Moses. It's all from God even if conceived and written by people, and all equally valid. Social justice is an ongoing struggle, with human beings taking equal responsibility for determining just how to keep one another free from oppression. Though there are many mitzvot (commandments) in the Torah, they don't result in a dictated positive code of social and moral behavior. Jews must infer what these best practices are and actively define them in each moment."
Rushkoff goes on to read the stories of Noah, Abraham, and Moses as examples of the development of ethical stances. Noah obeys God but never voices any feeling on behalf of all the people who are to die in the flood. Abraham argues with God on behalf of the righteous few who might be killed in Sodom & Gomorrah and comes to an agreement that the cities will be spared if ten righteous men can be found (and they can't). And finally when Moses learns that God intends to destroy the Israelites for worshiping the golden calf he offers his own life in their stead--and it is only this self-sacrifice which leads God to spare them.
(Rushkoff doesn't go on to say this but that seems a clear prefiguration of Christ.)