You mentioned Michael Youssef. I know not how much you have listened to him, but I will take him as an example. He is in the Evangelical Alliance. Their "Basis of Faith" (eauk.org/about-us/how-we-work/basis-of-faith) conflicts with the "Creed for Real Christianity". I will try to explain why I cannot regard anyone as a real Christian who persists in accepting Michael Youssef's creed after I have "explained to [them] the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18.26).

(1) Firstly some points in their Basis that I regard as errors. Starting with the biggest one.

(1.1) They see man's original task as "to love, be holy and care for creation". Neither love nor holiness is a separate activity. To practice love (assuming they mean agape) is to seek general welfare instead of selfish aims, but how is welfare assessed or achieved? To be holy is to be devoted to God's service, but what kind of service? Both questions have the same answer. It is "to develop the world's resources". Not just "care" (like a childminder), but actively (like a parent) to help bring all things (including human activities) towards the proper Goal. See "Heresies" --> "Otherworldalism", especially on "Additionalism". Otherworldalism is the most widespread and pernicious way in which modern Western Christianoidity has departed from real Christianity; it is what drove me in 1979 to conclude that they were not real Christians. (Their Otherworldalism expresses itself again when they claim to be "endowed with the Spirit’s gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love". They put celebrating and recruiting before doing anything.)

(1.2) They call the Bible "the written Word of God". This is a standard phrase that means "Whatever the Bible says, God says". I disagree. See "Bibliography" --> "The Bible".

(1.3) They call Christ's mother "the virgin Mary". I tend to agree, but only on balance of probabilities, and I think it wrong to assert it as a point of faith. See "Our proper goal" --> "The Answer (Part 2)".

(1.4) They refer to Christ "dying in our place, paying the price of sin". Both true in a certain way, but they are clearly implying the Appeasement theory, which takes the metaphor too literally. See "God's path to union" --> the first of the "Christianoid Objections".

(1.5) They predict "eternal condemnation to the lost". Here, "eternal" means endless, "condemnation" means punishment, "lost" means unsaved, and they are implying that this population will not be empty. I am inclined to disagree, as it seems to me that any remaining haters of God would be an ongoing insult to him that he will resolve. (Possibly by annihilating them, though I suspect he will do better than that.) I seem not to have explored this point on the site, but certainly I think it wrong to have such pessimism in their Basis.

(2) Then some points they are silent on but which I regard as essential (and therefore are in our Creed).

(2.1) "God's original plan included man not defecting and God becoming a man." Their Basis fails to assert this. See "Heresies" --> "Atheanthroposialism", especially under "Restitutionalism" and "Supralapsarianism".

(2.2) "Every man is king of his family." No Feminists, please; we're Christians.

(2.3) "No man should encroach on another's family or product" and "the State can never be anything but varnished gangsterism". Their Basis is silent on this, leaving the door open for the Gangsterism that most of its members probably support, where an idle 51% is entitled to seize the produce of a dilligent 49%, probably using lethal force if necessary. Sorry, I'm not going to join in "fellowship" with "fellows" pointing a gun at my head.