The churches began to go astray even while the apostles were on earth, as noted in Revelation chapters 1-3. The idea of one bishop ruling over several churches was a man-made idea, followed by the idea of clergy vs laity, and then clergy above laity. This led to the idea that only one man could be the pastor/priest of a church (appointed by the bishop), rather than a presbytery of elders (appointed by the Holy Spirit). But God never intended one man to be the shepherd, as already established in Israel and its elders since the time of Moses. This is at the heart of many issues within modern churches.
Then sacerdotalism and sacramentalism entered the churches very early on. The Protestant Reformers did not totally reject all the Catholic notions either, and regarded baptism as a sacrament rather than an ordinance. Scholasticism was established in the Catholic Church, so Protestants established seminaries for training and educating clergy, which again was contrary to the New Testament pattern. Even non-Protestant evangelical churches followed along and seminaries sprouted all over the world.
By the 18th and 19th centuries the seminaries became hotbeds of unbelief and theological liberalism, starting in Germany and then spreading all over. Many false teachings arose from there and filtered into the mainline denominations, including the Social Gospel. Eventually the Fundamentalist Movement began in the early 20th century, but the Fundamentalists had to leave their churches rather than recapture them. However things did not remain as such, and Fundamentalism began to be eroded by Neo-Evangelicalism, which has now led to the Emergent Church Movement (essentially theological liberalism), the Seeker Sensitive Movement, the Charismatic Movement etc. The Charismatic Movement encouraged the idea that subjective experiences were more important than objective Bible truth.
One can add to this departure from Bible Christianity the introduction of corrupt modern bible versions (starting in 1881) which primarily impacted on the doctrine of Scripture, but affected many other doctrines. Then there was the rejection of traditional hymnals and traditional music, then the abandonment of the use of the Bible within church services. But there is more. Churches began to encourage casual and sloppy dress during worship, eating and drinking during services, loud and worldly music, watered down *Christian songs*, church services geared to entertainment rather than edification, etc. Now iPhones are permitted by some to allow people to be driven to distraction, instead of focusing on God and Christ.
The fact remains that after churches go off the rails, they adamantly refuse to repent and return to Gospel Truth and Bible Truth, as well as the New Testament pattern of worship (which is not liturgical but Spirit led). So now we have entered into the period known as the Great Apostasy, and things will only go from bad to worse.
However, this does not mean that earnest Christians cannot simply disregard all the nonsense and go back to the Bible as see how the apostolic churches were structured and how they worshiped. One can start with Acts chapter 2 which provides the basics.
1st of all, thank you. There's a lot of material to address here--the more, the better! Though I agree with your broad brush strokes generally, I would have to qualify many of your criticisms.
I would have to say that the operation of a system of Grace assumes that the Church is never going to be perfect, as long as we live this side of the resurrection. So yes, we have to try to get back to the apostolic system, or to the biblical system. But expecting the ideal is not going to help us understand the progress of the Church in history, and hope for revival in the Church today. The Church has been progressing through all of the problems throughout the ages.
There has always been a separating process between the believing Church and the compromising Church. The fact there have been departures from true Christian practices does not disqualify the Church. Nor do imperfections within the true Church disqualify its value.
But yes, we need to look at some of these places where the Church started to get off track, and fuel a departure from the faith. I certainly wouldn't put the Charismatic Church together with the Liberal Churches! But yes, the Charismatic Church has this same tendency to compromise, leading to a departure from true Christianity.
We can get, I think, too critical, and too legalistic, when dealing with the progress of the Church in history. If we don't let people convert from where they've been, wearing their dress, liking their music, etc. they will think the jump to Christianity from paganism is impossible. We need to give them slack to allow a gradual change. In this I'm not adovcating for the allowance of actual sin. I'm just saying that we can become too harsh with Christians who are truly in the process of converting to Christianity.
Scholasticism is the same. Some need to approach the Gospel intellectually, and hope to arrive at a more spiritual place. Scholasticism is not wrong if it is able to make this jump. The fact some don't make this jump doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree with your sense of the problem with "sacerdotalism and sacramentalism." Luther did too. Protestantism pointed this out. But an overriding leadership is present in the doctrine of "apostleship." This was not, as you indicate, a church structure intended to be political, but rather, a prophetic call to start churches and to keep them lined up with fundamental doctrine.
Fundamentalism did properly point out the difference between true doctrine and corrupted Christian theology. As in everything, the truth must remain combined with spiritual experience if it is to remain vibrant. When the Spirit is lost, the doctrine becomes lifeless and meaningless. All this is a "process." Thanks for pointing out some important landmarks in the process in history!
