I think we may be building a mountain out of a molehill here, yankeedame. Theory can never trump the good order and salvation of souls. "Even though" an RC by theology, I find Martin Luther to have been a remarkably God-chosen and faithful man, right down to the very core of his being.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Reformed Church is not big on saints. The Catholic tradition is otherwise. And so I would say there ought to be a St. Martin Luther.... For his faith, for his love, for his fides quaerens intellectus, his faith in search of reason, of eternal Truth.
You wrote: "The idea that church -- both the physical building and congregation -- are simply a convenient assembly place for worship of the Divine. That it is not -- or should not be -- needed for the true believers.But while this may be good theory it is, I'm afraid, rather bad psychology."
There is great wisdom in your observation, yankeedame. Plato insisted that the people should not be led in revolt from even such as the Olympian gods (whom he personally, apparently did not hold in high repute); because once a man has lost the "customary" god, that doesn't necessarily mean he is soon going to find "a better god." Maybe he just loses God altogether. Which is disastrous -- for him, and at the end of the day, maybe also for the society of which he is a participant.
But I didn't at all mean to suggest any such thing. As my dear sister Alamo-Girl says, the Epistles of Paul and John's Apocalypse speak of seven different churches, in terms of praise and blame. It's as if God presents Himself to the human mind and soul through the medium of a seven-facted gemstone (the various churches). When we pray to Him, it is generally through one of the seven facets. And regardless of which facet one is viewing through/praying through, it is still one Truth, one Light, one God. And it is addressed to One God, Father, Son, and Spirit.
As for Deitrich Bonhoeffer's "Churchless Chrisitianity": By no means do I interpret him as saying he wants to establish some kind of new "innovative" sect. You have to put yourself in his historical shoes, and experience how disturbing, shocking, it was for him to see Hitler "commandeer" the German Church into service of the "Fatherland." In despair at times (presumably, since he spent a whole lot of time incarcerated by the Reich under exacrable conditions, and ended up murdered by it for his Witness), Bonhoeffer in his suffering was (perhaps) given a salvific vision, that the love and grace and light of God would continue to be radiated unto mankind, whether there be church buildings, or even a formal priesthood, or no. For when push comes to shove, Jesus Christ is our priest, our confessor -- and our ultimate judge.
If I were about to be executed for confessing to God's Truth, I'm sure I would find that a deeply comforting and consoling Word....
In the love and peace of Christ.
Inasmuch as the formal church identifies itself as a cultural institution it is a cultural religion.
Cultural religion is distinct from the spiritual relationship between man and God. The one exists as a function of society. The latter is intimately personal. They are not codependent.
To survive, the institutional church does not require spirituality. In fact mainline churches are notorious for focusing on cultural issues and dissuading members from overly spiritual zeal.
The church is a cultural institution and, as such, must be protected by the government from attacks on its corporate life. This is precisely, I predict, how the establishment clause will next be interpreted.
It is insanely impossible to remove all vestiges of religious expression from public life. If public life is presumed to be the domain of the government, as it is in the current state of affairs, then it is impossible for the government to limit religious activity. (Or, at least, the religious activity of the cultural church.)
Finally, the court will be required to allow religious activity in all aspects of public life. It is at this juncture that the establishment clause will become of extreme significance.
As soon as the government allows for the free and open expression of religious activity it will begin to define, proscribe and means test religious expression. When that happens the government will have begun to establish a religion. We will have gone full circle.
As has been noted earlier by various posters, what the government subsumes as its prerogative, the government destroys.
Society does not belong to government. Yet the governing elite act as if they are the masters of life within our territorial boundaries.