Yes, I think we're on similar pages of the same basic book (or at least in the same library). In a way, I'm responding to you, but in another way, I'm cheating: these are thoughts I've been trying to pen for some time, and its easier to do so responsively - but if too longwinded, I'll apologize and stop.
I'll skip over most of your reference to Jesus, since I see no major differences there.
My reference to 'organized' and 'disorganized' religion also rests upon hierarchies, structures, and understandings about who has the authority to do what. I'd simplify that and say it comes down to debts/obligations. The 'hierachy' rests upon determining who may 'bind' a church body and make decisions for it - who can speak for it, and 'speaking' doesn't just mean sermons/doctrines, but also, speaking with authority as to which debts will be paid. Loosely, an organized church has a process to handle that; a disorganized church tends to have a single personality in control with little checking that person's authority.
It's worth pausing: these hierarchical structures in religion are actually the basis for the modern secular corporation, a concept that emerged from a Catholic doctrine. Catholics 'incorporated' their churches so that any single church in any part of Christendom could not incur debts which anyone could pursue by going back to the Pope (largely because for most of that history, the Pope wasn't exactly in a position to pay those debts anyway). The "Body of Christ" that is the church exists as "separately incorporated BODIES" on Earth, all linked together by the Pope (a 'bridge' - not just from humans to God, but holding together all the 'bodies' into one 'body')...The 'shareholders' in a 'church corporation' would theoretically be 'owned/controlled/connected' by the Pope, who appointed bishops etc to administer his will (in practice, the local leadership had much more control). By the late Middle Ages, people going on pilgrimages might do so for spiritual reasons, or for help with petitions or grievances, but they knew the Pope would never repay debts some local bishop had cheated on.
By Don Quixote's day, the notion that the church made separately incorporated 'people' was old and universally accepted, but the efforts to extend that to other entities seemed ridiculous. How could a windmill be a 'legal person'? What sort of person would that be? (And yet, the legal fiction was so useful - feudal lords didn't get to 'own' the windmill just because they put up a piece of the capital, but only their 'shares' - and if they tried to screw the other shareholders, then the windmill makers would get the word out...perhaps building more windmills in a neighboring province, which might use the profits to hire soldiers...).
That is early capitalism. Unbridled accumulation of wealth? Later - at firs,t they just didn't want the local lords to burn their houses and steal everything. Lords might put in some capital, the local church might too, but each 'owned' their shares - in the windmill, bridge, foundry, etc. Cheating happened of course, but if things got too egregious, other shareholders would know and word would get out, hurting that lord's credit. As those barriers started emerging at home, local lords started looking elsewhere where they might not be constrained that way...like, say, Africa, or a New World...
There's always been close ties between wealth and church. But it wouldn't be until the 20th century that these ties manifested as 'wealthy corporations.' I do not know of a better reference for how that started in the 1930s and where it led (by Eisenhower's time or later) than Kevin Kruse's "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America."
But I start with that approach to Capital, because that's the FDR/Social Gospel approach to Capitalism: the wealthy people cheat, and the more wealthy, the more likely they are to cheat. BUT we need them, and their wealth is not in and of itself evil (though often it will be used in evil ways). A wealthy person who feasts while his brother starves is morally flawed. "Love thy neighbor" creates duties. But Capitalism itself is perfectly acceptable, so long as it plays by the rules and doesn't cheat.
A "Social Gospel" approach recognizes that churches can be subject to a 'hostile takeover' - like every other form of corporation (or organization). One doesn't need to "buy out the Pope" - one just needs the local priests to preach and do precisely what is advantageous for your operations to prosper.
I do NOT see Catholicism as "the Organized Church" taking over America, even if we have 6 Catholic judges on the Supreme Court (and a seventh who was raised Catholic and attended the same prep schools as others). Sotomayor may be as Catholic as her colleagues, but she does not rule as they rule. Rather, I see numerous disorganized strands as local 'lords' try to raise funds to finance a hostile takeover of as much of Catholicism as they can. It's slow going and hard, because the Vatican is there to challenge. To buy out the Catholic church would cost many hundreds of billions of dollars.
Contrast with Protestants: would a congregation of 1000 people wouldn't start preaching the gospel that "Minimum Wages are sinful" if a donor paid $100,000 for that message? Some might. Most wouldn't, at least, not if someone put it to them in directly those terms. (And what donor would do that? The owner of a few franchises would probably be paying a hefty chunk of the weekly donations for years...if he came short a few times, the pastor would ask about the problem and would 'understand' the hint that these minimum wages are scary for him...and either deliver the sermon his wealthy congregant wants, or risk losing that member to some other church that would.)
But in a congregation with 1000 members, how much would it cost to buy out a Bible study or Sunday school teacher? $1000? Less? A single conversation? And if that Bible Study leader wants to start preaching the "Minimum Wages are sinful" gospel, can the senior pastor rein that leader in? Will they? (Particularly if the local restaurant owner might pay the rest of the church $20,000?...on the condition that the Bible Study leader become associate pastor...)
That's what I refer to with the problem of a "disorganized" nonhierarchical Evangelical sects: they're actually much cheaper and easier to 'buy out.' In practice, their disorganization ought to be protection, BUT it makes it possible for crafty wealthy players to manipulate whatever they find and exploit it for their personal advantage. They'll always find church members who can be tempted. Once they figure out what to do with that temptation, they'll adapt a playbook - then replicate the model (or more properly, 'franchise' it).
As those sorts of takeovers happen, the local branches set up a profitable system dominated by some local 'landlord' - and then start influencing a broader parent organization, either causing it to change doctrine to reflect what the local elders want to see - or a schism. Harder and slower to do that with an established entity with deep history, but it just takes time and money.
The more organized, the more time and money required. You have to convince people at the low end, and at least look like you are conforming with the messaging from the top, and cooperating with the underlings, etc. - it takes time. Easier if there's nobody there to question you, or better still, if the pastor/priest has personal control over everything with no constraint whatsoever. And if a disorganized faith structure proves too difficult to crack, finance a schism and then bypass the original church with some new ("Evangelical") church.
