I know it may sound cynical and even presumptuous to impute motives, but I have to come clean. Any time I see a move towards classical liberal theology, from a more conservative view, I have the same thoughts as Michael Bird does. But, he is able to articulate it in a clearer and more memorable fashion:
I think Langford fails to recognize that what drives much of liberal theology is not so much rationality, but culture, the attempt to make Christianity palatable to the reigning cultural zeitgeist. That is why I’ve often thought of liberal theology as theological form of “Stockholm syndrome,” where liberal theologians identify with the values of their cultural captors in order to survive under adversity or strive to impress their contemporaries.