Adrian Warnock has taken to calling a certain movement within the church "Neo-Liberals". I might possibly be a part of this group. He considers the movement's primary purpose to be to "make the church somehow more acceptable to today's culture", and it has attempted to do so by jettisoning various objectionable doctrines and replacing them with more acceptable ones, e.g. "disposing of a sovereign all-knowing God replacing it with so-called 'open theism', replacing the atonement with what I am still not sure or replacing punishment in hell with annihilationism".
As far as I can tell, Adrian has fixed upon the term "Neo-Liberal" in order to draw a parallel between the "Neo-Liberals" and the liberal church. The two features of the liberal church that he is focused on is 1) the liberal church's focus on acceptance by the rest of the world, and 2) a low regard for the Bible. The first is made evident by his claim that the goal of Neo-Liberals is to "make the church somehow more acceptable to today's culture". The second is made clear when he says "I don't have the luxury of chucking out portions of the bible like [Neo-Liberals do] as I do believe it is the word of God".
I can't comment on the first very well as the group in question is rather nebulously defined and is certainly unorganized so the motivations for this movement are likely various. But the second is almost certainly wrong.
Adrian has given Open Theists as an example of Neo-Liberals. While I disagree vehemently with Open Theism, one thing I would never accuse them of is a low regard for the Bible. Pinnock et al believe what they believe precisely because they have a high regard for scripture. When the Bible talks of God repenting or of God changing His mind, they take that extremely seriously. At the same time, they find no mention of the atemporality of God, and thus do not require it of their theology. Contrary to Adrian's assertions, they do believe that God is both sovereign and all-knowing. For open theists, God's sovereignty and omniscience do not extend into the future as the future does not exist, but He is sovereign and all-knowing nonetheless.
Critics of penal substitution have also fallen under Adrian's label of Neo-Liberal. Yet most of these critics that I know of (and I myself am one) do so because they feel that penal substitution is not entirely biblical and that some other model is more biblical. [My attack on penal substitution to come in subsequent posts.]
I assume that Universalists would also fall under the Neo-Liberal label. Yet one can be a Universalist and still consider the Bible the Word of God. In fact, Jeremy has linked to an article where the author is a Universalist because he believes that that is what the Scriptures demand.
As a result of examples like these, I would advise Adrian to either change his terminology, or else make it clear that Neo-Liberals do not necessarily hold the Scriptures in low regard. Also, since it is very hard to accurately assign motives, I'd also advise him not to assume that all who question traditional doctrine do so out of a desire to conform the world.
If Adrian is content to define Neo-Liberals as those who are questioning or disagreeing with curently held evangelical doctrine, then I that is a definition I can agree with. Going beyond that is probalby going too far. I myself would call such a group "progressive evangelicalism", except that I see that Tony Campolo has used the term already and I am reluctant to use already extant terms which may carry connotations that I am unaware of.
[Note: I am rather unhappy with the current trend of accusing those who disagree with you with denying inerrancy. Just because someone disagrees with you on an issue of theology doesn't mean that that person doesn't think that the Scriptires are the inspired Word of God. For example, ETS recently tried to kick Pinnock out of ETS on the grounds that he denies inerrancy. This is ridiculous. Pinnock has interpreted various passages of Scripture differently than most of the rest of the ETS, but he still considers the Bible to be authoratitive.]