I probably have more respect for him after reading that article than I did from reading his books.
I'm not thrilled with the statement about fundamentalists, but articles and reports rarely if ever quote everything in complete context.
Instead of assuming he's an enemy of the basics of Christianity, I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he says otherwise. Judging from what he's said and written so far, there's no reason to believe he's against the basics of Christianity. There IS reason to believe he's against the radical, legalistic groups that call themselves fundamentalists, and are present in every group.
The term fundamentalist has pretty much been taken over by radical idiots and there are a whole lot of people who have no idea of what it really means. Go ahead and ask members of your church what the term means.
Actually, you don't even have to go that far. Click on over to the Fundamental Baptist section of the Baptist Board, where the "fundamentalists" hang out.
It isn't a group of people expounding on the truth of the virgin birth and the belief of one God. It's people arguing whether to use the KJV or whether women should wear pants, drinking alcohol, trying to figure out if people who do big sins can be in church, whether or not people should shake hands while a hymn plays, and railing against a number of evangelists.
Go ahead, go look through the threads, and decide for yourself if the term "fundamentalist" is being abused or not, and if people do not have the right, maybe even a duty, to begin disassociating themselves from the term.