How to look good naked

Verse 1
God gave me the sunshine,
Then showed me my lifeline
I was told it was all mine,
Then I got laid on a ley line
What a day, what a day,
And your Jesus really died for me
Then Jesus really tried for me

Verse 2
UK and entropy,
I feel like its ****in’ (beeped out) me
Wanna feed off the energy,
Love living like a deity
What a day, one day,
And your Jesus really died for me
I guess Jesus really tried for me

Bridge:
Bodies in the Bodhi tree,
Bodies making chemistry
Bodies on my family,
Bodies in the way of me
Bodies in the cemetery,
And that’s the way it’s gonna be

Chorus:
All we’ve ever wanted
Is to look good naked
Hope that someone can take it
God save me rejection
From my reflection,
I want perfection

Verse 3:
Praying for the rapture,
‘Cause it’s stranger getting stranger
And everything’s contagious
It’s the modern middle ages
All day every day
And if Jesus really died for me
Then Jesus really tried for me

Outro:
Jesus didn’t die for you, what do you want?
(I want perfection)
Jesus didn’t die for you, what are you on?
Oh Lord
(Jesus really died for you) Ohh
(Jesus really died for you)
(Jesus really died for you) Ohh

Above are the lyrics to Robbie Williams’ new single, Bodies. I have to confess I was a keen Robbie Williams fan back in the day. Anyway I thought this was an interesting song – it seems to show a serious head-on collision between 21st century British celeb culture and Christianity.

Perhaps the most striking thing is that Robbie is singing ‘Jesus really died for me.’ But in the second verse it’s ‘if Jesus died for me’. The song ends with the question, ‘Jesus didn’t die for you, what do you want?’.

What’s going on? Is Robbie a born again Christian now or is he singing about a flirtation with Jesus that he ultimately rejects?

It’s difficult to say, but it’s clear that there’s some kind of struggle with Jesus. Initially things look good (V1 and 2), but in V3 the strangeness of Christianity becomes clear (the ‘rapture’ is the idea that some Christians hold that they’ll be ‘raptured’ up to heaven at some point, leaving what’s left of the world to everyone else). It’s true that in many ways being a conservative Christian is a bit like living in the modern middle ages. You think men should be leaders, capital punishment’s God-given, governments should be submitted to, not necessarily voted in, etc. That’s a shock to most modern people’s system.

There’s two ways of hearing the chorus. The first one is that Robbie is exemplifying the concerns of modern pop culture, which, believably, is all about wanting to ‘look good naked’. Robbie wants a perfect body, and he doesn’t have it, hence the struggle with Jesus, who offers his followers little in the way of physical perfection now (at least that’s the feedback I get when I ask the ladies!). Ultimately, Jesus can’t heal our narcissism.

The other way of seeing it – which I just thought of while writing the last para – is that Robbie’s referring to the effects of the Fall, which we happened to be looking at in our bible study group at church a couple of weeks ago. After Adam and Eve disobey God’s command not to eat from the tree of knowledge, they realise they are naked and hide when God comes:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

(Genesis 3)

On this view, the human condition is all about wanting to good naked, but realising that you don’t – that you can’t stand naked and unashamed in front of God. Even as you look at yourself in the mirror you know you’re not up to much, and that it would take perfection to sort you out. But that’s what Jesus provides: a hope of being able to stand before our Creator, knowing that because of Jesus we are perfect in him.

And in Christ, there is even the hope of having perfect bodies:

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

(Philippians 3)

So maybe Robbie is telling us how Jesus deals with the central problem of pop culture. Rather than Jesus being defeated by our narcissism, as it fails it drives us to him.

I don’t know how honest this song is, and the ending is as ambiguous as the rest of it, with backing singers repeating ‘Jesus really died for you’. But I pray that Robbie, and his generation, would have the humility to recognise that we are not able to ‘look good naked’, and to trust in Christ, who will one day transform our lowly bodies to be like his glorious body.

That’s my effort at working out what he’s talking about – thoughts? I have no idea what the bridge is about…

Because saying ‘no’ to a bacon sarnie isn’t sinful, apparently

Dave Bish has been considering the issue of women teaching in student Christian Unions. He says that where CUs are divided on this issue, the majority should lovingly submit to the minority. For example, in a CU where the majority hold to the complementarian position (they believe that women are equal in status but not in role, and believe it is exclusively a man’s role to lead through teaching), they should allow women to teach so that the minority don’t feel oppressed. Or vice versa, in a majority egalitarian CU, the majority should not impose women teachers on the complementarian minority.

Dave distinguishes between the position in a CU, which is an evangelistic organisation with a small shared doctrinal basis, and a church, where decisions have to be made about how to teach about marriage and whether to appoint female elders.

I want to make a couple of points in response.

Firstly, a lot of what Dave is saying seems to be an application of Romans 14, correct?

A quick sample:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

(ESV)

An egalitarian CU ought to welcome a complementarian person (whom they would judge weak in faith), by not putting the hinderance of a female speaker in front of the complementarian.

That’s fine, but when we looked at Romans 14 in our small groups earlier this year, we noted that Paul specifically talks to those who are ’strong’ in faith – those who are happy to eat anything or drink anything. He tells those people not to destroy the work of God by what they eat or drink. So in essence, the strong should love the weak by being willing to give up their bacon sandwiches or their beer so that the weak people don’t feel that they are in sin or unwelcome.

What he doesn’t say is that the weak people should act like the strong to welcome the strong. So if the house church contained a majority of people who felt eating pork was not right, Paul’s not saying they should start serving bacon sandwiches before church just so the people who feel that eating them is ok feel welcome.

No, because for the person who thinks eating bacon sarnies is wrong, eating them really is a sin. Verse 23:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

But for the person who thinks it’s ok to eat bacon sandwiches, it is not a sin for them not to eat them. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYTHING YOU THINK IS ‘OK’ IS NOT A SIN!!)

So basically, as well as being loving, Christian communities should default to the “least sin” position. It is the strong who have an obligation to the weak.

I’d argue that in the complementarian/egalitarian debate in CUs, it is the complementarians who are more obviously weak. That’s because everyone agrees that male speakers are ok, it’s just whether female speakers are ok or not.

When a male speaker speaks, both complementarians and egalitarians are happy. No one is sinning. The egalitarians might be thinking it would be great to get that really excellent female speaker in sometime, but like missing out on bacon sandwiches, they’ll just have to put up with it for the sake of their weaker brothers and sisters.

However when a female speaker speaks, often complementarians are sinning. If they really are convinced it is wrong to sit under a woman’s teaching then they are sinning, and we’ve just mucked up our application of Romans 14.

An egalitarian CU leader might feel that he’s sinning by not allowing women to have their God-given right to teach, but I think we can agree that this is a less obvious sin than the complementarian’s.

Ok, that was point 1.

Point 2 is much more brief. Which is to consider how CUs and churches are different in this respect. I think they are, but possibly not for quite the same reason as Dave.

The “minimal doctrinal basis so we can have a shared mission” point is fair enough, but it’s quite a pragmatic argument that is prone to a ‘where do you draw the line?’ response.

I think the reason churches can be a bit more inflexible on this is that they have elders who have authority and responsibility for those decisions. If I’m not sure whether someone should or shouldn’t teach in my local church, I am happy to sit under that teaching regardless, because I defer to the authority of my elders, knowing their God given role is to make those kinds of decisions and to bear the responsibility for them. In a CU it’s not quite the same, because I’m not convinced that a CU leader has quite the same authority to make those kinds of decisions.

Additionally, I would think that a convinced egalitarian church leadership would probably be sinning if they didn’t appoint a woman they considered suitable to the eldership since the nature of church leadership is quite different to an occasional CU speaking engagement. So in a church the egalitarian/complementarian positions become a bit harder to classify into weak/strong.

It’s complicated stuff, and I haven’t had a coffee yet, so please don’t take this as anything other than tentative. If you think what I’ve said is wrong, or has dangerous implications let me know. With that, I’m off for a bacon sarnie!

Admitted into a participation of this grace – Calvin on Romans 6

Let us know, that the Apostle does not simply exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death of Christ is a pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt he ascends higher, as he announces a doctrine, with which he connects, as it is evident, an exhortation; and his doctrine is this — that the death of Christ is efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity of our flesh, and his resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better nature, and that by baptism we are admitted into a participation of this grace.

This foundation being laid, Christians may very suitably be exhorted to strive to respond to their calling. Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27.)

Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence.

– John Calvin, Commentary on Romans

Romans 6 and baptism in the early church

I’m somewhat hesitant to post this, as my views are not fully formed, it’s a comment on a major source of disunity in the church, and many greater minds than myself have come to a different view on this.

But what is blogging for if not to discuss a few ideas, while practicing discernment?

With that in mind, read this passage assuming that the early church had a normative practice of infant baptism:

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

(ESV)

If you suppose all-age baptism in the early church, what is the most obvious interpretation of this? Surely that all of us who have been baptised with water have been spiritually united to Christ, adults and infants alike. You’d be looking around your Roman house church thinking there’s Andronicus and Junia – they’re baptised, so they’re united to Christ. And their two little sprogs, Andronicute and Juniette. They’re baptised too, so Paul is saying they’ve been buried with Christ in his death.

This has some interesting implications. This baptism is not presented as a breakable bond, so surely it means that all the baptised will be saved. Breakable or not, we’re in Federal Vision territory. Does it not also mean that the unbaptised will not be saved since they cannot be united to Christ through baptism? In which case, what about the old “if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord” line from a few chapters later? Are there two ways to be saved? I’m sure we would all say ‘certainly not!’

Additionally, why exactly would God chose the application of water upon an infant to be the thing that joins them to Christ?

To avoid these issues, you’re forced to say with Dunn that this passage refers to a spiritual baptism leading to a spiritual unity with Christ. But most agree this is unlikely. Or you say, with Calvin, that baptism unites you to Christ conditionally upon faith (and indeed mortification! Institues 4.16.16). But are we to imagine that Paul wanted his Roman readers to keep inserting “and repentant faith” in this passage every time he mentions baptism? No, Paul is really saying that baptism unites you to Christ in his death – we have been united with him.

Let’s try again, this time reading the passage presupposing an early church practice of normative believers’ baptism upon profession of faith.

If baptism stands for the public declaration of faith in the Christ who died for your trespasses and was raised for your justification (Rom 4) then the link between faith and baptism is much clearer. If baptism in the early church presupposes faith, then it is easy to see why Paul is able to use baptism as a kind of synecdoche for faith. It becomes obvious why baptism should unite you to Christ – it does it in the same way faith does. Christians can look back on their baptism as a point where they became united to Christ as they publicly identified themselves with Christ in his death. It’s essentially an intensified, objective expression of faith – a confession with the mouth and with the body that Jesus is Lord.

Obviously this is not to say that all baptisms follow true faith, nor that all who are saved must be baptised. But this passage makes most sense if it was the norm in the early church for baptism to be an expression of an individual’s faith.

Thoughts?

All the better for it

I was just sitting on the bench in the garden having lunch, and some thoughts about brokenness and fixing occurred to me.

You see, the bench used to be broken, and looked like a sad tangle of spars. But soon after I moved in we managed to fit all the pieces back together, and drill some screws into it. It’s almost as good as new, and I take an almost absurd pleasure in sitting on it.

It’s the same with my bike. I really enjoy the freedom of cycling around, but for a couple of months I’ve been stranded by a puncture. I finally got round to replacing the inner tube last week. After finishing the process of taking off the wheel, removing the tyre, pumping up the new tube and replacing the wheel, it feels better than ever to be rolling round East London.

It’s like that in the Bible too. In Luke 15, Jesus tells three stories about lost things being found. A shepherd loses a sheep. A widow loses a coin. A father loses a son. But in each story, what was lost is found. And because it is found, life is better than ever. The shepherd calls his mates to say ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ The widow calls her girlfriends to say ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ The father celebrates and kills a fattened calf, saying to his other son ‘It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’

When what we lost is restored to us, life is better than ever. Jesus said ‘there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than 99 righteous persons who need no repentance’.

We all know the hurt broken things can cause. Broken homes and broken relationships look ugly and leave us stranded.

But Christians know that God is a fixer. They know that he’s remaking the world, slotting every broken spar into place. When he’s finished, life will be better than ever. Paul writes to the Romans:

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

When broken things are fixed, it’s a beautiful thing. Whatever happens to the broken things of this world, one day the whole world will be fixed. And it will be all the better for it.

Our freedom is sweeter because we were stranded. Our rest will be more satisfying because it was lost.

And God will rejoice in a people who are his, who once were dead, but now are alive. Who were lost, but now are found.

The final word

I’ve just finished my last day in the office at Reevoo, the best shopping website on the internet. Up now for me is 6 weeks of holiday, helping on kids’ camps, and getting prepared for the next step, which is joining the St. Helen’s Associate Scheme.

There’s definitely a measure of regret at leaving a great company with lots of great people, but at the same time I’m looking forward to getting on with what I hope will be the way I spend the majority of my working life: helping the people God brings me into contact with to get a better understanding of him by studying the Bible together.

It might seem crazy to think that even if there is a God, we could understand him in the pages of a book which has material ranging from 4 to 2 millenia ago, and which – let’s face it – has some things in it that people in our culture find pretty weird.

But honestly, I think that this collection of material contains the most powerful message on the planet. My experience has been one of skepticism that these particular stories about this particular nation (Israel) and person (Jesus) could really be what God would communicate to us.

But when I stop putting God a box that fits my preconceived notion of what God should be like, I find the amazing coherence of the Biblical theme of God’s plan to create a people for himself, first by choosing Israel but ultimately through Jesus. I see the authenticity of the accounts of Jesus’ life that force you to conclude that Jesus really is the Son of God, even as he voluntarily died an ugly death at the hands of a people that had rejected him.

When you put those themes together and understand that by punishing Jesus for our sin God has provided a way of saving us to be his people, you find a story that is inexhaustible in its depth and beauty.

It’s this message that’s so powerful and so important that I am really keen to understand better myself and help others to understand. It’s the kind of message that it’s not really possible to remain neutral on. I’ve decided that the Bible does mean what it says, and for me that decision has lead to me quitting my job to spend more time learning from Jesus in the Bible. (Although it won’t be appropriate for most people to quit their jobs, even if they do believe what the Bible says!)

My question is, if this book is powerful enough to shape the life of one apparently-sane young man, isn’t it possible that you should give it some serious consideration?

As a footnote, while I’m away hoping to read Timothy Ward’s ‘Words of Life’ – a book all about defending the power and truth of the Bible as God’s Word to us. I’ll let you know what I think about it when I get back.

Many mustard seeds better than one acorn?

One of the biggest trends in evangelical circles at the moment is the idea of missional church plants. Instead of one large church, create lots of small churches that each individually grow quicker than a larger church because they have a more welcoming culture, a more dynamic culture of evangelism, and innovate more quickly. Examples from the US of tiny church plants to megachurches like Mars Hill have gotten a lot of people very excited by the idea.

I have to say it’s an idea that appeals to me personally. I like the idea of finding things out for myself without too many established structures, and coming from the background of working for an internet start-up in London, I’m interested in how lessons from entreprenurial start-up culture could be applied to the church.

However, it is important to consider how central the ‘missional church plant’ model should be in our tactics for church growth here in the UK. How strong is the evidence that it works? If it worked there, will it work here?

Tony Payne of Matthias Media has some interesting thoughts on how the missional church planting model may be a better solution for church growth in America than in Australia:

I am grossly simplifying, but in most parts of the US, it is far easier to put up your shingle and gather a reasonable crowd than it is in most parts of Australia. The society is just more ‘churched’, with a vastly greater number of vaguely or culturally Christianized people who are willing to come to church if presented with the right package. In this context, starting a new church can be an excellent way to evangelize because you are drawing in unconverted people who are nevertheless quite willing to come to church.

In a more pagan, unchurched country like Australia, there may be many contexts in which ‘getting people to church’ is not the wisest way to evangelize them. Evangelism will happen in the workplace, at the pub, through personal relationships, in the neighbourhood, at school, in the marketplace. In this context, planting a new congregation may well provide a good home-base for reaching out to new people, but how we reach those people will almost certainly require a willingness to think outside our traditional structures and methodologies of ‘getting people to church’.

The question is, what about the UK?

Notes from the 2009 Evangelical Ministry Assembly

Dan Green has helpfully put up all his notes from the sessions at the Proclamation Trust’s Evangelical Ministry Assembly last week.

I really enjoyed all the talks, so if you can’t wait for the mp3s (which I think they are planning to charge for), I’d encourage you to check them out. Brief thoughts on each speaker from me:

• Don Carson was brilliant at packing lots and lots of snapshot thoughts about Biblically-grounded prayer from across the whole Bible into three talks.
• David Jackman produced some model expositions that really paid attention to the literary techniques in the psalms, and hit home in his understated way.
• Richard Coekin was passionate and clear with his two talks from Jonah on ‘God the Evangelist’. Good examples of some Christ-centred preaching from the OT too, with his application of the sign of Jonah from Matthew.
• John Dickson was massively engaging and had some very interesting thoughts on evangelism that slightly contrasted with most of the stuff I hear.

You can read Dan’s notes here:

Here are the links to all my notes from this year’s Evangelical Ministry Assembly that took place last week.

David Jackman – Preaching and praying from the Psalms

1) Psalm 44

2) Psalm 86

3) Psalm 108

Don Carson – Prayer and Mission

1) Prayer changes things or does it?

2) Five prayer polarities

3) Improving our praying

Richard Coekin – Engaged in God’s mission

1) Preaching from Jonah (1)

2) Preaching from Jonah (2)

John Dickson – Strategy for Mission

1) Three dimensions of promoting the gospel

2) Three dimensions of proclaiming the gospel

Vaughan Roberts – Annual EMA Address

Strategic thinking for strategic times

I never did find out what the wind turbines were for

A glance at the Federal Vision from Don Carson

I was privileged to get to hear Don Carson (along with several excellent speakers) at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly held in London this week.

On the second day, there was an interview with him conducted by Richard Cunningham (Director of UCCF). Among many topics posed, Carson was asked whether the Federal Vision presented sufficient problems that it requires a ‘99 call‘ by non-Federal Visionists – a reference to the British Lions’ tactic of combating the Springboks’ physicality by punching the nearest opposition player when the 99 call was shouted.

Carson, after taking issue with the analogy, suggested two thoughts to bear in mind.

Firstly, the content of the message matters. Secondly, the way the message is promulgated matters.

Under the first heading, Don noted that there are a range of views amongst FV advocates, some of which are wrong, some of which are perhaps worse than that (I don’t want to mis-quote him). More interestingly, he noted that various streams of orthodoxy are susceptible to different errors. High Presbyterians will be more attracted to the presumption of the salvation of believers’ children (one of the FV’s main distinctives) than Baptists. Other streams will be more attracted to other errors – e.g. Arminians to Openness Theology, Messianic Jews to the Galatian heresy etc (I just made those up).

Carson then went on to suggest that he thinks English Anglicans will be susceptible to following the FV errors because ‘they don’t have a strong theology of baptism’. If you tend away from the main stream of what the Bible teaches in one area, you will be inviting a ’swingback’. If we don’t talk about the Spirit, we invite the extreme charismatic movement, if we ignore the issues involved in the end-times, we invite dispensationalism.

So similarly, he thinks English Anglicanism could be tempted by aspects of the Federal Vision: a practice of child baptism without a clear theology of it (unlike that ground out by American Presbyterians I assume). I’m not really qualified to comment on that!

He didn’t mention this, but obviously the presence of historical Catholic and Lutheran views of child salvation through baptism in the Anglican denomination may also make FV views on this issue attractive to conservative evangelical Anglicans who are seeking unity in a denomination that is so theologically fragmented.

Under his second heading, the way the message is promulgated matters, Carson was similarly irenic and helpful.

Don repeated what is a familiar line of his when he deals with various movements – students pick up what you teach, not your assumptions. So the next generation may have gotten your views on the gifts of the Spirit, or the timing of the millennium, or the salvation of believers’ children, but having forgotten the basic gospel of Christ appearing to save sinners and judge evil.

His concern is that for some Federal Visionists, their distinctives may become more central in their teaching than the gospel.

My general comments would be that Carso’s guarded approach to the Federal Vision echoes that of John Piper, who has invited Doug Wilson to speak at a Desiring God conference. It may be that Reformed Baptists are disposed to be generous to Federal Visionists, since they think the key error is in infant baptism, and may almost welcome the increased link between baptism and regeneration seen in FV theology. They both clearly think there are errors in the Federal Vision, but are not rushing to trumpet them.

I certainly appreciated Carson’s rejection of the idea of making a ‘99 Call’ on the FV, and his willingness to be perhaps harsh on Anglicans in giving them a loving warning. I’d encourage anyone interested in the Federal Vision debate to read this superb primer on the Federal Vision issues and importantly how to approach them.

Threading the needle, Twitter style

An interesting blog post on the Economist’s Democracy in America blog yesterday claimed that

Iran’s likely-rigged ballot this weekend, and the protests that have erupted in response, present something of a dilemma for Barack Obama …

On one hand,

Iranian human-rights organisations appear to be in broad agreement that an appearance of American support for the opposition would only feed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s self-serving claims that the protests are somehow foreign-instigated, and in the words of one wag, risk a backlash of nationalism that “would make Lee Greenwood look like a flag-burning hippie”.

But on the other,

it seems equally disturbing to simply wink at what is very probably a brazen fraud … Is there any way for Mr Obama to thread the needle?

Well the news coming in this morning is that Mr Obama’s team have found quite a cunning way to do just that.

One of the interesting sub-plots of the Iran story has been the massive use of the #iranelection Twitter feed to organise protests, share shock stories and generally spread information and misinformation. But this bubbling pot of discontent was in danger of going off the boil, as Twitter had planned some scheduled maintainance. So yesterday, a State Department official emailed Twitter to request that they delay planned maintainance to allow Iranians to continue to communicate their insurgency.

I haven’t seen it explicitly stated, but there’s a reason this story is in the Times this morning. It allows the US Government to look like it is supporting Iranians’ right to democracy and free speech. But by talking about things like Twitter and hashtags instead of making an Obama pronouncement there’s a significantly lower risk of inciting a backlash from the rural/working class Iranians who more likely to support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and less likely to be up to speed on the social web.

An interesting example of how soft power may work in the web-enabled world – and another instance of the Obama admistration’s impressive grasp of the emerging potential of these new technologies.