Strawman arguments from the spiritually enlightened

Thankfully, we have this article from the Huffington Post as reblogged in Real Clear Religion to put those fundamentalist Christians in their place.  Oh, no, the title is so frightening: fundamental, bible and literal all used in one explosive "I've got you trapped now" headline...what will we as Christians do. 
So, as always, let's start with the foundation that the esteemed Dr. McSwain is working from.  From his own website he states, "I promote spirituality - I’m a Christian by choice, but I respect all spiritual traditions. Why? That’s what Jesus did. The Buddha before him. Lao-Tzu, too. So did Saint Paul, Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, Mother Teresa, and now, Pope Francis. Building bridges between people and faith traditions – what could be more Christian? Mother Teresa used to say, “I love all religions…but I’m in love with my own.” Such wisdom! Do you need a broader, more inclusive, spiritual vision?"  Well, I guess we are lucky to have him commentating on the bible given that he chose from the religion smorgasbord and found that Christianity was the best one for him.  With such a pluralistic opinion on things, I question why he cares whether someone believes in a literal bible or not, but I digress.  As to the fact that Jesus respected all spiritual traditions, unless the kind Dr. met Jesus personally can we get at least one verse proving his contention.
As to his own views of the bible, he is among those elite enlightened Christians that are able to effectively demonstrate which scriptures are true and false in order to develop their well orbed Christianity.  To quote from his blog, "the Bible's real authority... power... is found in its stories and the imaginative way those stories have shaped the life of those who seriously listen for its divine message."  So, according to Dr. McSwain, we shouldn't find the authority for the Bible in God, it's power from the Holy Spirit, but instead in the way its imaginative storytelling gives us the goosebumps.  As for the rest of us "literalists", we just aren't listening seriously enough.
How about his ability to exegete the Scriptures which he finds so imaginative.  Again, from his blog, "if you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2)."  Forgetting first, the attack on those who have "ever actually read the text", I cannot help but marvel at the poor Dr.'s incompetent view of analyzing the Scriptures.  Needless to say, the passage in Genesis is fairly consistent in that there is one flood with the difference in species gathered dependent on whether the animal is clean or unclean.  But really, if this is the level of analysis done by someone like the kind Dr. who must have really read the text for himself unlike those fundamentalists, then I wouldn't give too much credence to the remainder of what he has to say.
As to his original contention that fundamentalists believe in a literal bible.  Well, don't worry Dr. McSwain, we actually don't...and in fact no one does.  But don't let this fact convince you that us unenlightened Christians feel the same way that you do because we don't as you can see by this good synopsis from the Gospel Coalition. 
As to Dr. McSwain's last point, "if the Church does not do this(follow his enlightened path and ditch this "literalism" ), there is little future for the Bible.  Thank you for the effort Dr. McSwain, but I'm pretty sure the Bible is doing just fine despite the dire prognostications offered.