User talk:JKing72
You need to read up on Wiki editing. Not all facts need to be mentioned to make the point - unless the intention is to tell a narrative instead of post an encyclopedic entry. Not every article, allegation, and linkable post are needed. Suffice to say that the church has seen controversial issues, but not every one with the subjective adjectives you chose.
For starters, the church is a church, not a "controversial church". It does indeed serve a community/population, so it is a church. It has seen controversy, and its pastor has been involved, the building itself is a church institution, not a controversial church. Had the church been built with some offensive or bizarre design, it would indeed be a controversial church.
The edits I used told of controversy and left the references - as you want it seen, it is a ledger of every act the journalist sees fit to write about.
Not placing the part about Johnston's advocacy against gay marriage - hence the beginnings of the consistent "controversial" articles - in the wiki article, is also not telling the full story of this "controversy" or the "controversial pastor" involved.
BigMommaHome (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)