I will always be wary of anyone who overuses the historical-critical method as I would be of anyone who would have absolutely nothing to do with it.
The historical-critical method is valid, and I daresay, essential in studying the Bible because the Bible is still a collection of ancient literature and deserves to be treated as such. I have seen how those who reject the method outright come to opinions and conclusions just as erroneous, foolish or ridiculous. So sometimes it will yield evidence that traditional positions such as order, authorship or timetable are not what they were held to be. Big deal. Truth will never contradict truth, and Church doesn’t fear any of that. So if it is found that Isaiah was written by three different authors over three different time periods, there’s no need to worry of have one’s faith shaken.
But to use it at the exclusion of faith, tradition and other points of view is just as stupid a position to take because then we get interpretations that end up way out there. A key example is the so-called Q source for the synoptic Gospels. It’s so widely embraced by modern scholars but no fragment of any such source has ever been found, while papyri are still hanging around in fragments, despite the fragility of the material. Not so with Q, but noooo…the historical-critical method says so. Early Fathers said Matthew wrote in Aramaic? Don’t care, not part of the historical-critical method.
Both extremes are dangerous. A right balance is the way to go.