inerrancy or interpretation

I mentioned a Christianity Today article in my message last week that featured the current head of Southern Seminary in Louisville. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/october/3.18.html

In the article, Mohler makes a profound admission. He states that the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention wasn't about the bible itself but rather how to interpret the bible. For years and years, fundamentalists crusaded to defend the Holy Writ. Words like 'inerrant' and 'inspired' were thrown out. That became the litmus test, for these pharisees, on whether or not a Christian was a true-believer.
In truth, that wasn't it at all. I don't believe the bible contains errors. I do believe that it is the inspired word of God. Believing that doesn't mean that I have to interpret Genesis 1 as occurring in 168 hours.
Fundamentalists really want control. Using some buzz words doesn't yield that control. Determining how scripture is to be interpreted, that does. Of course, arguing that scripture has only one interpretation negates the power of the Holy Spirit and denies the Reformation's argument for the perspicuity of scripture that Luther fought so hard for--but hey, the lust for power is a strong temptation.
To sum up, the battle from 1979 to whenever was a battle of hermeneutics, not a battle for the bible. I'm pleased that a fundamentalist finally fessed up to that.