Interesting read, but unfortunately, the author appears to be familiar primarily with the Catholic caricatures of the various protestant theories of authority, not with full and robust expressions of those theories. The existence of Christ is not subjective, and as He Himself has said, He is alone is our master, not the many lesser pretenders to the Crown.
So, to offer an olive branch, I do agree that compared with the question of authority, most other debates are peripheral. Not unimportant, but not primary in sequence. Though there is one problem that seems to be subservient which may in fact be coordinate, and that is the question of natural law. If natural law operates effectively to tell a soul they should not give reverence to an idol, a mere piece of stone or wood, and if one encounters a set of circumstances which, to the “un-nuanced” observer, certainly looks like a misdirection of reverence to mere created things, or anything less than God Himself, how is it wrong for that person to reject what his God-given inner law is telling him is idolatry? Is there not a fusion of the subjective and the objective in the concept of natural law?
Which natural law, I hasten to point out, is supported by both Catholic and Reformed traditions (Yes, contrary to what you may have heard, Calvin was fully on board, owing in no small part to Romans 2:15). It is a quasi-subjective principle that is rooted in the objective pattern of God’s creation, has the sanction of indisputable Apostolic authority, and the indelible mark of good logic, in that no one could be held accountable for sin without it. Works for me. Thoughts?
PS: I apologize if my responses come far and few between, as I am actually working today. Whoo-hoo!
The author grew up as a Protestant in a Protestant home, is an alumnus of Bob Jones University (a violently anti-Catholic Protestant school in South Carolina), and a former Church of England priest. I'm not sure what he would need to do to be more familiar with the "full and robust expressions" of theories of Protestant authority.
“If natural law operates effectively to tell a soul they should not give reverence to an idol, a mere piece of stone or wood, and if one encounters a set of circumstances which, to the “un-nuanced” observer, certainly looks like a misdirection of reverence to mere created things, or anything less than God Himself, how is it wrong for that person to reject what his God-given inner law is telling him is idolatry?”
Amen to that.
I would add a few other thoughts... if such things appear idolatrous to so many, even if one can make an argument that they are not, why invite the negative consequences that such appearance will provoke? Why not remove the practice causing controversy, if there is not a compelling benefit to the practice which would outweigh the negative consequences?
Even Catholics admit some of their less faithful members may commit idolatry with icons, even though it’s against Church teachings, so why tempt those members of the flock to sin? Do they leave bottles of Communion wine laying around when they know there are alcoholics in the congregation?