They rightly realize that faith cannot be tethered to the ephemeral whims of scholarly fashion. Unfortunately, they choose to ignore that insisting on the historical character of biblical truth does not necessitate enslavement to scholarly fads—unless one assumes naively (and many them do) that "the latest is the greatest" mistaking present trends for perennial truth. Similarly, to rate historical truth highly in theological interpretation doesn't necessitate historiography being a "tether" or "basis" for faith. Historical study typically enriches and enlarges, often correcting and focusing interpretations the truths already clearly implied in the text. They also get it right that the Bible's primary reference is to theological truth, but again, they ignore the centuries-old recognition, going all the way back to the Church Fathers, that the Bible refers to theological truth by means of historical reference. It is a mediated revelation: truth comes via historically shaped texts to alert, investigating, thoughtful faith. St. John says "The Word became flesh" not "The Word became text."
He has more, have a read.