Two searches that arrived at my blog in the relatively near past involved assumptions that I would very strongly disagree with. Since these are a little more extended comments than I like to give to searches, I'm only including two searches in this post.
peter enns denies inerrancy
Hardly. He teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary, which requires its professors to affirm inerrancy. What Enns does is flirt with unhelpful and inaccurate ways of saying things that, if taken more seriously than he probably wants to take them, would lead logically to a denial of inerrancy. I wouldn't say that his views don't face difficulties if you want to reconcile them with inerrancy. They certainly do. But I don't think he sees that. He officially accepts inerrancy (at the center of his core views in terms of importance) and just doesn't realize that some of the things he holds (on the outskirts) might undermine his support of inerrancy.
"Campus Crusade for Christ" complementarian
Some people think this (and the results Google turns up for this search show that some vocal people in this debate seem to think this). But it's actually not true. Simply because they have not taken the stance that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has endorsed (which is very clearly egalitarian) does not mean that they have endorsed complementarianism. They leave that issue up to the local leadership of each ministry on each campus. I've seen some run their group in complementarian ways and others not. At Syracuse, women give talks at meetings and co-lead Bible studies with male members. The leadership at Brown during my first two years there did the same thing. Because they don't want to cause division, they seek to have a male and female director at each location and refuse to have a female director without a male director (except at all Women's schools like Smith College). But that's not because of an endorsement of complementarianism. It's because they seek to avoid structures at the organizational level that will make people of either view uncomfortable. Some of the national leaders are complementarians, but others are egalitarians. There has been tension over this issue but not because either view is dictating how things should be run. The tension is because neither view is endorsed.