The question about Naaman's 'bowing in the house of Rimmon' is answered in Anderson's _Alexander and Rufus_ on page 15. Anderson writes,
'They who have justly withdrawn from the communion of any particular church on account of its corruptions; and yet allow themselves in the practices of occasional communion with the church in her public ordinances, are far more involved in the guilt of its corruptions, than Naaman the Syrian was, in the guilt of worshipping Rimmon, when he bowed in the temple of that idol: for they cannot pretend, that communion with such a church is no end of their attendance on her public ordinances; as Naaman pleaded, that his intention, in going to the temple of Rimmon and being present there, was not to worship the idol, but to serve his master. Grotius, indeed, and some other commentators, justify or excuse the conduct of Naaman. But more candid interpreters hold that the indulgence, which Naaman desired, was unlawful; that there was such an appearance of evil, such a countenancing of idolatry in it, as he ought to have avoided, that his presence in the temple of Rimmon in the time of worship of that idol, was a dangerous example to others; that, on such an occasion, he ought either to have obtained leave of absence from his master, or to have quitted his service; and that even his desire of pardon intimated his consciousness of something sinful in this matter.'
More answers to Doug Wilson's errors at the 'Outside Web Link' below.