The following summary appears in an official document written in the early 1980's:
As in the 1920s, the denomination is now discussing biblical authority, since adherents of the inerrantist* view of the authority of the Bible have become increasingly vocal. The inerrantist view was the predominant view in the church from the l700s until 1927. At that time the denomination debated the extent to which the General Assembly had constitutional power to issue binding defInitions of "essential and necessary doctrines" for ordination. In 1927, the General Assembly repudiated earlier declarations that named five fundamental doctrines as essential and necessary for subscription for ordination (the Deliverance of 1910, again adopted in 1920 and 1923). In its action, the General Assembly permitted theological diversity within the limits of the confessions. Thus, the view of biblical authority and interpretation that was held from the mid-1700s gradually made room for new theological perspectives, fIrst as moderate liberalism in the 1930s, then as strong neoorthodoxy in the 1940s and 1950s. From the 1960s to the present, new currents, such as process,* liberation,* and other theologies, have provided additional perspectives.
There were at the time that was written, and still are today, a variety of approaches within the denomination. But a strict position of inerrancy was held only by 14% in 1979. I would guess that it's similar today.
My own position is that Scripture is a human document that gives an account of how God dealt with his people. It functions as the Word of God when understood (and particularly, when preached) with the aid of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Bible contains a variety of perspectives on God is obvious from any straightforward reading. I believe my view has been typical of the leadership for several decades, and quite likely was typical at least back to the 1940s and 50s.
