Well the implicit ad hominem (don't believe their arguments because they do) can work either way. If you all started listening to what we say instead of making it up, you might have to make some initially uncomfortable changes too. So we shouldn't listen to you for the same reason you shouldn't listen to us.
I think the Protty perspective is much less fragile.
1. It’s not based on some pretended monolithic edifice centuries old encrusted with fossilized this’s and that’s within and without.
2. It’s not based on a helter-skelter hodge podge of mangled history; mangled leadership; mangled structures—some wonderful and some horrific all pretending to be as pure as the driven snow in a seamless fairy tale from 400 years before the organization’s existence until the present.
3. At worst, Protty groups are reduced to sending the Protty individuals back to searching Scripturs for themselves like the Bereans. One can do a lot worse than that.
4. However, I agree to this extent—Prottys who idolize their organization; denomination; set of distinctive dogma . . . etc. would likely be more in a similar boat. Prottys in the SAME organizations who put God supremely first and subject ALL the organizational pontifications to Scripture and confirmation or disconfirmation by Holy Spirit—would not likely be fazed in the least.
5. I think the same is likely true of some RC’s who put all the RC pontifications and dogma to confirmation and/or disconfirmation of Scripture and Holy Spirit and quietly go merily on their way without making a fuss—worshipping within the structure regardless of their convictions of what’s askew—merely because they feel that’s where Holy Spirit still has for them to reside in the Body of Christ. I doubt they’d be all that moved by the RC edifice’s fantasies being ‘outted.’