I'm giving a paper in 9 days in Atlanta titled, "Are Differences in the Manuscripts a Problem for Christian Faith?" I actually thought this was a rather lame topic, since the answer is so obviously, "No, differences aren't a problem for Christian faith in the slightest." The answer hasn't changed from the beginning of textual criticism to Bruce Metzger's verdict in The Text of the New Testament to now.
However, in preparation for the paper I've been reading a bit about Daniel Wallace's ongoing debate with Bart Ehrman. My impression is that Ehrman is quite the showman and plays with the ignorance of audiences to 1) make them think the original text is more uncertain than it is, when 2) he doesn't even actually think that himself. The first chapter of Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament gives the essence of this debate.
From what I can tell, the more things change the more they are the same. I find nothing in Ehrman troubling that is valid. And there are a few things in Ehrman that probably aren't valid... and which one wonders if even he believes. So I feel just as up to date on "textual criticism and faith" today as I did when I finished seminary.