agreed. and it wouldn't be an issue in this case if he wasn't mentoring a messianic agent of "change."
why, what does one have to do with the other? other than this is the only negative you can stick to him.
Umm, I'm confused. The article states that the church owns the house, not Rev. Wright. In fact, he lost money on the transaction of the land to the Church. What is so controversial about a church with a congregation of 6000 building a big house for their pastor. We don't know what church functions will also happen at the house. Ten thousand square feet and four bedrooms? Sounds multi-use to me.