The question is not rhetorical, but goes to the epistemological basis of both the fundamentalists’ position and your own. That is, “On what do you base your truth claim?

Presumably, both you and your less-developed fundamentalist co-believers share some belief in God as the basis for truth. Of course, if my presumption is mistaken, I welcome its correction. (The characterisation of your views as being more developed than those of fundamentalism is based on your own description, ‘…I am not a fundamentalist, having mostly outgrown that point of view more than 35 years ago… .” The phrasing clearly depicts a process of growth out of and beyond fundamentalism.) If my presumption is correct, and both you and the fundamentalists affirm a Divine basis for truth, then the question becomes one of authority; on what basis can anyone make a truth claim of this nature?

That is, if truth exists in and because of God, then human understanding of truth must be derived from God. That derivation must be through either communication (direct, as in revelation, or indirect, as through Scripture or other intermediaries) or imputation (that is, through some sort of understanding imparted to humanity in the act of Creation). The fundamentalists appeal to a set of writings as the basis for their truth claims (and, apparently, accept no other authority). You appeal to a source that is as yet unknown to me as the authority for your claim of truth.

Thus my question: Why must we be reconciled to Christ?

I’ve spent an hour a day trying to crack this nut (documented at http://signab43.blogspot.com/) and the only way is to get the media to ask the right questions.