Is Biblical inerrancy important?

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=04-02-003-f

This is a fascinating essay on the topic of Biblical inerrancy. The author, a conservative Christian, has come to the conclusion "biblical inerrancy" is a meaningless term as currently defined and defended. For one, it applies only to the original autographs, not to any Bible actually in existence. He also reveals that at least some professors at Christian colleges know this, but still profess it with their fingers behind their backs, as it were.

Interestingly enough, he concludes by accepting the Orthodox position on the relationship between the Church and the Bible as the only real solution to the mess.

I remember back in college a Campus Crusade lesson about inerrancy. It asserted that inerrancy is important, because if someone doesn't believe the whole Bible is inerrant, that person can never believe in Christ and be saved. I thought that was ludicrous and still do. At least to me, it's obvious someone could have saving faith in Christ while doubting that whole sections of the Bible are historically accurate. Just so those particular sections don't involve the Lord's death and resurrection, there's no reason such a person couldn't repent and commit himself to God.

Here's the way it worked for me. I first had to believe in Christ. Then, I could believe that he worked through the Church to ensure the right canon, a reasonable level of textual preservation, and proper interpretation.