On his radio program, Chris vigorously defended his description of Dan Kimball as a "Christian brother," by which he meant that Kimball believes, teaches, and confesses Christian orthodoxy (i.e. the primary truths that must be affirmed in order to be Christian, and the denial of which makes one a heretic). At the same time, he stressed that Kimball teaches and acts in a way that is not always consistent with the orthodox doctrine he believes (he uses the term heteropraxy to describe this). He didn't go much into detail, however; several times he mentioned that some of what he and Dan spoke about was private.
Chris's show has created confusion and a fair bit of anger and frustration in the circles in which I spend time. There have been a few responses, and some attempts to clarify, and I'm sure that an episode next week on CrossTalk will be used in part to rebut what Chris is saying (or at least the manner in which he's acting).