What Was Wrong With the Original?

Thanks to Michael for uncovering the substitute resolution passed by the UCC, but I'm puzzled by the perceived need to propose a substitute.  What is objectionable about the original resolution?  The only thing I can decipher is its statement that "the Lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ"  is not an optional doctrine for UCC members and pastors.  But shouldn't one who joins a Christian community be required to believe that Jesus is Lord?  What else can a Christian believe?

Perhaps the problem with the resolution is that those who proposed it are known to be "fundamentalists."  This is a term that seems to be used with the same sort of pejorative abandon as "liberal" was back in the 1988 presidential campaign.  Are they fundamentalists because they want to require members to believe that Jesus is Lord, or because they oppose gay marriage, or for some other reason?  Gay marriage and the divinity of Christ seem to be readily separable issues.  It strikes me that the original resolution was much less political than the substitute one; I'm wondering if the embrace of the substitute stemmed more from its implicit (and justified, in my view) repudiation of the Religious Right than from any doctrinal substance.

Rob