It’s been a few months since I last spoke about Kiva.org, and I wanted to bring it up again.

Since writing, I’ve tried out the lending scheme, and am blown away with the ability to make a difference to places where it’s seriously needed. Not only has Kiva created an infrastructure for microlending which makes it incredibly easy to lend small amounts to entrepreneurs in developing countries, but it makes use of the very nature of the Web in connecting you with people all over the world.

The idea of ’sponsorship’ isn’t really stressed. This isn’t a: “For pennies a day, you could clean this water…” It’s much more of a chance to invest directly into the lives of people who need it, and have a chance to pull themselves up.

My primary worry, when lending (giving) is that I’ll be made to feel like a vouyer in some way. Instead of concern, I worry that I will be made to focus on fascination or curiosity. This doesn’t seem to be the case with Kiva. Although it doesn’t feel like a standard business transaction, it does present enough facts in a straight-forward way. There is not over-blown language, but clear presentation of cases.

I also feel more comfortable lending directly to “partners” in developing nations. I feel this is much more efficient, and more in the spirit of a digital age.

When social networking is the topic, I imagine most people think of Facebook, Myspace or LinkedIn—sites fundamentally  derived from self promotion and entertainment. Despite the high language used to discuss social networking and Web 2.0, most of my time spent on them is all about having fun or trying to look better to others (which is what LinkedIn is primarily for). But what about the idea that the world is now connected? Why do I spend most of my time online ‘socialising’ with people I already know, or participating in interests in which I’m already interested?

After all, the idea of a network (on online community) is to create and maintain connections between people and groups. It is only a matter of time before connections are made which open eyes.

Bloggers in Burma have been using the web to broadcast their message not to let the world close its eyes to the community disaster there. YouTube has been mentioned to contain many thousands of clips from soldiers in or from Iraq. This is a serious source of information, a broadcast network between communities. And it seems that this call for help could be so easily ignored if it weren’t for the persistence of the messages: ignorance as a refuge is shrinking daily.

But where’s the 2.0 in this Web? Where is the sharing and the interaction from these blogs and discussions? Have a look at Kiva.org, the most inspiring website I have seen in months.

Having been reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, I’ve begun formulating a few thoughts on what some have called the ‘emergent church’.

Because I work with the internet, I tend to see things from an ‘online’ perspective. When I see a presentation, I ask why it doesn’t link to resources and I tend to Google answers and keep many tabs open with on-the-fly further reading on a subject. One of the most wide-spread of all internet buzzwords is "Web 2.0". The ideas behind it have been summed up (indeed, coined) by the O’Reilly network. To me, many of these have a strong resonance with the ‘newly painted church’ of Mars Hill. For example, there is an emphasis in Web 2.0 on participation and "The long tail" which I see reflected in "every member ministry" and discussions instead of sermons. Teaching has taken on a very interactive flavour, and theology is less about rules.

While the tag ‘Church 2.0′ is wildly inaccurate on one score (e.g. there have been many renditions of the church), the notion of a renaissance is definitely present and many of the tenets of Web 2.0 can be helpfully used as metaphor in the church.

Participation vs. Preaching:

With links to various incarnations of the ‘Cell’ movement, the idea of discussion supplementing or even replacing pulpit-sermons is certainly not new.