I'll grant your first observation, but reserve the following on your second observation -- Heresy, to my mind, is the teaching of false doctrine, most particularly doctrines directly affecting Salvation (i.e., as distinguished from Baptist-Presbyterian debates over the Mode of Baptism or Lutheran-Calvinist debates over the Nature of the Eucharist -- all of which are important, but which do not themselves abrogate Protestant agreement on Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, etc).
It probably should be a "definition of heresy" for any Prot to embrace heresy; but I rather doubt Colson (and maybe even Johnson) could precisely define their own beliefs, let alone "heresy".
Colson may well indeed be (in fact, is) leading Protestants astray, but (if this constitutes any mitigation of the case, not certain it does) entirely out of "Good Intentions" marked by ignorance of his own Confessions.
So, I'll see your "blind guides", and call the hand. ;-)
It seems to me that Johnson here failed to distinguish the lesser problem that westerners should have with the Orthodox's eucharistic practice and icons. He really papered that over, not even very smoothly. Johnson can be excused his warm view of the Orthodox but, given that his reputation rests upon refuting evolution with cold hard fact, he fell down on the job here. His reputation as a tough legal mind in fighting the falsehoods and arrogance of the evolutionists inevitably buttresses his little pillow-fight over the theological differences between the Orthodox and Prot/Baptist/evangelical churches.
That is something I had thought about as well. Johnson, like Colson, is in essence "lending his reputation" to an Ecumenicist tendency which is not necessarily beneficial to the exacting pursuit of Absolute Truth.
On reflection, that's one of the reasons I posted the article -- it is Phillip Johnson, he is a "Big Name", and people do pay attention to what he has to say. Ergo, what you said.
Just a thought: we might skip the word 'bloody' in religious threads. It could offend devout British readers (what few might remain). The blood in 'bloody' is, in my understanding, a British reference to the blood of Christ. Besides, a good Teuton like you should have some nice German phrases. ; )
Fair 'Nuff. Heck, the entire German Language sounds like a string of cuss words. ;-)
Personally, as I have said before: I think that American conventions on "cuss words" are pretty arbitrary ("jerk", an abbreviation for "jerk-off" or Onanism, is generally thought of as "mild" or not even a "cuss word" at all; whereas various words for animal manure -- which is not an "evil" in any sense, in fact it's a positive good at planting season -- are considered the basest profanities), but some of Ye Olde Merry English "cuss words" do have a liguistic origin in what could be called "profane", so I'll happily abstain therefrom at your recommendation.
best, OP
Having given the book away and never had it returned I cannot speak with accuracy, but I don't recall the book discussing much about the eucharist.
As for icons....our theology about them goes deeper than simply surrounding ourselves with "windows to heaven".
As Mama Fred herself said in the book, "Still, there seems something shocking about using representations of Jesus in our worship. It is the same shock that is sometimes called "the scandal of particularity"--that God who is ineffable and invisible, who commanded that no image of him be made, took flesh and became a baby. He became visible, concrete, with shocking specificity: a man of a certain height, build, and eye color, eating a real roast fish on a Sunday afternoon."
Our theology of icons is about the representation in the flesh of God here on earth, or Christ. And we are all "icons of God", made in His image.
A writing you may find enjoyable here. I laugh every time I read the line about the Orthodox leaning against the barriers.