I asked myself the question in light of modern day Evangelicalism. Did wisdom come to an end with the death of the last Apostle?? It would seem so, according to some Evangelicals!!! and it wasn't resurrected until men like Huss,Wycliff,and Luther came along ... It's more about novelty and entertainment these days.
You are muddling two different things: the traditional Evangelical perception of the subapostolic age and beyond (i.e. of church history); and the 21st-century craze for novelty prevalent in some strands of Evangelicalism. The second is of no pressing interest to me, as it has not really affected (or infected) our church here in Wrexham to any distressing degree; but I agree that the first raises some puzzling and perplexing questions and needs to be addressed.
First, a scripture, Judges 2.7-10: "The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work which the Lord had done... And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them, who did not know the Lord or the work which he had done." Two questions: (1) Is this the usual pattern, or even always the pattern? (2) Is the church founded by the apostles upon Christ an exception?
(1) In my perception it is the usual pattern - maybe always the pattern. Throughout the OT there were times of spiritual revival, when the people turned earnestly to God, followed by times of decline in spirituality. In the NT we constantly read in the epistles and in Revelation of churches beginning to slide away and needing to be called back. In church history I see the same pattern time and again. Thinking for a moment only of movements of God's Spirit in Britain, what has happened to Wesleyan Methodism in the past, say, 200 years? to Calvinistic Methodism (mainly prevalent in Wales rather than England)? To the churches established by the Primitive Methodists from the 1830s onwards in my own home county? Why did the General Baptists, established here in 1612, nearly all slide into Unitarianism by the end of the next century (though some, praise God, pulled themselves together and started afresh)? Looking abroad, what has happened to the Moravians? the Waldensians? None of them, as a body (I do not mean no individual believers), retains its initial beliefs or fervour. All have gone into spiritual decline, and I believe (not surprisingly) numerical decline. So: OT, NT, church history - over and over again a move of God's Spirit which lasts for a generation or two, sometimes longer, then a cooling off.
(2) Was the early church an exception to this pattern? Firstly, it seems clear that there have always been men raised up to call the church back from decline: to name just a very few, here in Britain one might think of Ælfric, Archbp Wulfstan, Wycliffe, Wesley and many others; abroad, what about Savonarola, Francis of Assisi, Luther, and again many others? The stream of devotion and fervour has never permanently died out. In turning from the NT to the post-apostolic writings, it is plain that one is breathing a different atmosphere: the central concerns and emphases are different; new ideas spring up, others are sidelined. Did the church gradually lose its early fervour ("I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first")? Or did it grow and develop always according to the wishes of God?
The Evangelical perception is that, over time and the generations, the church slid away from its early fervour and from holding as central the things which are indeed central. I get the impression that the Orthodox perception is the opposite.
Of course there was always wise, edifying, Christ-centred writing, and one can progress through the Fathers to the mediæval church and on to the present, and find a rich seam of nourishment. Few would deny that, I hope. But even if you Orthodox are not persuaded by our perception of church history, you ought at least to grant it respect as a view which can be humbly and sincerely held, not inconsistent with every possible interpretation of scripture or history.