I'm very frustrated by McCain's lack of response to Obama's charge that "Republican policies" of deregulation are responsible for the current financial crisis.  I know that many of you disagree with McCain and are against Republican policies in general, but I do ask that in the interest of intellectual honesty and clarity, you all take a few minutes to review some facts so you can argue fairly for your position. 

From the New York Times, September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago....

 

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the...Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

 

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Here's another excerpt from the Wall Street Journal about who endorsed and who opposed legislation to prevent this crisis:

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent....

 

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

It turns out that the Democrats put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to lower their standards in order to enable people to buy homes who really couldn't afford to.  This was done out of compassion, but as I've explained before, misplaced compassion can have disastrous consequences when it directs government policy at the expense of standards and justice.  

In terms of the debate itself so far, I'm really interested to know what health care has to do with foreign policy.  What's going on with these questions?

The Emerging Church is officially dead...at least, the name is dead.  Dan Kimball says of the term, "I can't defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as 'the emerging church' anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with." 

"Emerging Church" is being dropped by people across the theological board.  It's no surprise that the term has become useless, for it doesn't define what must be the most central aspect of any church movement: the God they worship.  The many conceptions of God and Christianity that evolved without boundaries among the emerging churches couldn't be united on the lesser issues of evangelism and mission, as important as those issues are.  And when such a thing (uniting as an "Emerging" movement) was attempted, the result was often a greater focus on people and community (the subject of evangelism and mission) rather than on God simply because of the nature of the way the movement defined itself.  Beginning with defined doctrine is a much better way to make Christ the foundation--the focus--of a movement.

Dan has a new network in the works that will try to make a fresh start in the direction he originally intended when he created the "Emerging Church" term:

The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake--define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked.

(HT: Stand to Reason)