A lot of people are rather horrified by my "moral nihilism" and my relentless critique of the morality institution and various moralisms. But if one thinks about this very carefully, moralism, the priority of morality over religion, does lie at the heart of liberal Christianity.
Think about the common trope in an attempt to separate Christ from the inspired Scriptures: "Christ is God, not the Bible" or "Christ is the way, the truth and the life, not the Bible". Now, I have myself personal leanings towards neo-orthodoxy, but whenever I hear people trying to separate Christ from the Bible, the first question I ask myself is: okay, then how do you know or learn about Christ apart from the Bible? Do you have new prophetic revelation? Some other source of knowledge of Christ such as unwritten oral traditions? The surprising, or rather unsurprising, thing is that there is nothing supernatural about their alternative sources of knowledge about Christ.
Of course liberal Christians aren't the first to say that the Bible is unreliable or corrupt, the Mohammedans have already been there of course, but they simply "corrected" the Bible by the perfect revelations of the Qu'ran, thus they have better divinely inspired information about Christ by literal prophetic revelation. Other crazier cults and more normalised ones (sideways glance at Mormons), will claim other prophetic sources of divine revelation for Christ.
Yet no liberal Christian will claim that they have other sources of divine revelation concerning Jesus when they want to distance Christ from the Bible. So how do they have information concerning Christ apart from the Bible? We are inevitably led to their subjective moral judgement of what a "good" and "loving" Christ will look like, and then they reconstruct Christ along those lines. According to my sense of what is good and loving, this is what a good/loving Christ will do and be like, etc. Thus, that there's little or nothing supernatural about their Christ is almost self-evident, but that there's nothing supernatural about their alternartive sources for who or what Jesus Christ is is something which is rarely noted, it is pure deduction and inferences from their personal moral judgements and instincts. It is not like they have performed miracles to confirm their new revelations concerning Christ. Naturally the relationship between natural revelation and supernatural revelation can be nuanced, and it could be argued, in some sense, that natural revelation is a precondition for supernatural revelation, but indeed they don't claim to have any supernatural revelation at all, it's pure moralism all the way down.
As such, if they can reconstruct God and Jesus Christ in their own moral image, isn't this basically morality overtaking religion, and even subverting it? How has morality not itself already become a god, capable of shaping and remaking God himself sans actual supernatural actions and events like prophetic revelation or miraculous confirmation/authentication?
It seems therefore to me that moralism does lie at the heart of liberal Christianity, and from which it draws its fundamentals and strength. And as the morals of the age change, so does their God and Christ morph and change. As a side note, there is an interesting viscereal instinct of Anglosphere Christians against the supernatural or the incursion of the supernatural into nature. I remember arguing for the practice of casting lots and I got an extremely strong pushback from perfectly respectable conservative Christians. It isn't that lots can't be abused or that we need to have a discussion on how to properly use it, the idea is that it is simply unthinkable. Then again, this could be due to the disestablishment of religion from public life a very long time ago, but that's a discussion for another day.