Inerrancy

In our ever-shifting culture, including within evangelicalism, why is it that we have to defend inerrancy?  Here is a quick clip from the Gospel Coalition that addresses this fundamental question.

The other question I have is, why is it that if you do defend inerrancy, some will accuse you of being a fundamentalist? (which, in case you didn't know, is just about the worst sin one could commit within the progressive branch of the evangelical family.)  For example, if one believes in the reality of creation in Genesis 1 (as opposed to an exclusively functional interpretation of Genesis 1 as John Walton argues), does it make this person de facto a fundamentalist?  In other words, are all creationists fundamentalists? Is theistic evolution the only viable option for "thinking" evangelicals?  I have a hunch some would not be entirely happy with this idea (full disclosure, neither would I).  

For a more developed definition of what it means to be an inerrantist (and what it does not mean), check out also Zondervan's new book on the topic.  While it's part of the "Views" series Zondervan has put out, it's clear that a consensus still exists within mainstream evangelicals on the topic, which is a very good thing.