This is a somewhat confounding article because it is hard to know what "liberal theology" is. Perhaps people who have been to seminary know. I don't. My guess would be that that it interprets God and Jesus by accepting the findings of science, accepting story and metaphor in scripture as opposed to literalism, recognizing equality and worth of all people, accepting scripture's demand for social justice and maybe tolerating some uncertainty. But is that guess correct? He talks about a good liberalism that seeks a liberal state (one that does not impose religious belief? One that provides universal access to health care? Has there been such a thing to even talk about? Certainly not our state which seems dedicated to war, spying "shutdown" oneupsmanship and promoting or protecting income inequality) And then there is bad liberalism, which is humanistic, materialistic, and somehow not repectful enough of ritual or cultic practices and "speech forms" that are for some reason authoritative. (The eucharist? Catholic transubstantiation version or Protestant symbolizing version? What speech forms? Are these things really what Christianity is about?) And what then is a postliberal theology? MacNair says the issue is whether sin rather than progress defines the human condition. But sin, progress and freedom are all present and in constant tension. Finally the author wants a reinvented liberal theology as leading to a "fuller, thicker account of the good." (What's that mean?). Hopefully more than just a liberal state. But what else? Seems like there should be more here.