1. Where and when was the view concerning the seven ages of the church first established? This seems to me to be a relatively new phenomenon, and it doesn't appear that John understood the messages the same way (or at least if he did, he does not make any allusion to it in Revelation).

Many passages of Scripture, especially prophecies, are not understood completely by those to whom it was originally given. Some are not understood until much later (the old "hindsight is 20/20" idea. For example, 1 Peter 1:10 states that the prophets of old who wrote God's word regarding the messiah and salvation searched diligently to understand what they had written. (Great proof of inspiration, BTW. If they didn't understand it, then they certainly couldn't have originated it.) Jesus would rebuke His disciples for not seeing that the prophecies applied to Him (Luke 24:25) Jesus even gave prophetic statements which He implied would not be understood until AFTER they were fulfilled (John 13:19).

So, is it possible that Jesus could give a prophecy in the book of the Revelation that is not understood as such until AFTER they had been fulfilled? Certainly! Jesus giving an overview of the church ages in Revelation 2-3 would be perfectly feasible, despite the fact that their recognition as such is a relatively recent phenomena. In fact, if what I've said in the first paragraph is true, I would be surprised for people to have recognized it any sooner.

As for specifically, when did this interpretation first come about, I couldn't give you a great answer, but I can't find anything written on it beyond the last century. I had an old, retiring seminary prof who had been taught the view (and held it himself), but he implied it was rather rare. I do know that certain churches have been identified with Revelation churches intermittently throughout church history, e.g., Christians going through persecution identifying with Smyrna, Luther connecting the Catholic church with Thyatira, etc., but as far as a systematic understanding of history, the view is rather recent.

2. Doesn't this theory present a westernized view of thought? I deals only with the church in Israel at first, then Europe, then America as it is formed. How does this affect a place like China, where Christians have been persecuted for centuries? Would they not still be in the Smyrna Period? Is it fair to view only the condition of the church in certain regions, because we know that the church is universal?

My explanation for this is that the churches in Revelation are representative of the church in its broadest/dominant sense, and primarily charts the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries. It is not intended to be a "history" in the sense that it is either comprehensive (covering every believer/congregation) or detailed (it prophecies "moods" and attitudes, more so than actions. In that sense, Western church history, as you called it, IS church history. Your first couple of examples are moot, because the church was primarily in Israel at first, and then did spread primarily into Europe (Cf. the book of Acts). While there were early missionaries to Africa, Asia, etc., there is no evidence that their challenges/struggles were any different than those described by John's letter to Ephesus. The same would be true of the characteristics of Symrna. Not every church was persecuted for all 200 years of Roman oppression, but every church that was would find itself under the dominant descriptions of that letter. That was THE characteristic of the churches during that time.

The next major CHANGE in "world" church history was the acceptance/elevation that occurred during the Pergamos age. If some churches were will working out of duty, and some were still being persecuted, it did not alter the fact that the church AS A WHOLE was fundamentally affected by the changes under Constantine and those who followed him. There is no question that the next dominant influence on the church throughout the world was the rise of the Roman church. This affected Christianity everywhere. Then Christianity was fundamentally changed by the reformation. Churches in just about every location in the world can point to their connection with either Catholicism or the Reformation. What Christianity wasn't already present in the world as a result of those two movements were introduced to Christ by the "open door" of missions during the Philadelphia church. My point is that "westernized" church history (as you called it) IS the history of the church in the world. China may have "Smyrna-like" Christianity today, but the church as a whole is much more characterized by Laodicea today. Think "big picture" and you'll see my point.

3. The Bible is clear that the return of Christ was, is, will always be imminent, or in other words, "at hand." It can occur at any time, and this encourages us to live righteously. However, if Christ could not have returned until the Laodicean Church Period, would that not eliminate the imminency of His return during the other six?

Imminency is man's problem, not God's. What I mean by that is that imminency is always based on what God has revealed, so man may legitimately see something as imminent, but God knows exactly when something will happen, and what He wants to accomplish before that. Nothing is therefore "imminent" from God's perspective. For example, Galatians 4:4 says that God sent Christ "in the fullness of the times," meaning when everything He had planned had been accomplished, yet that never deterred Eve, nor any other woman from Eve to Mary from expecting and hoping the Messiah would be born to them. Were they wrong, or just basing their expectations on what God had (to that point) chosen to reveal? God surely knew that 2000 years of church history would occur before Christ returned, but it in no way impeded Paul from looking for the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13), or expecting to partake in the rapture (I Thess. 4:15). Even John, the one who saw the remainder of God’s plans for the world was able to pray “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

My point here is that, as you said, the return of Christ is imminent, but only from our limited perspective. Is it possible for God to write prophecies, yet conceal the full appreciation of those prophecies until after their fulfillment? I say yes.

4. Isn't it possible that the churches are given simply practically, and not with a prophetic emphasis? After all, they wouldn't have viewed these letters the same way that we do. It seems to me to have been added over time and accepted without any challenge by many in the church.

Don't create a false argument here. No one that I know of who holds to the Church age view of Rev. 2-3 would say the letters are not practically applied. In church history class, I talk about three levels of application. One, to the churches to whom they are addressed. 7 literal churches in 7 literal cities. Two, to the churches of all ages. "He that hath an ear to hear..." and all that. Three, a backward glance at the progress and development of Christ's church through the centuries. Still practical in the sense of giving us God's "divine commentary" on what His people have been doing since He left. I wouldn't have a problem in the world preaching on all three of these levels, and practically applying the lessons to the church today.

5. My biggest concern is not over "when" Christ will return, but that the church has seemingly accepted this view widely without much thought. I am willing to concede that it could very possibly be an outline of the coming church history, however can we really be sure enought to preach it as fact from our pulpits like is so often done? Sorry for the lengthy questions, but all, or even any answers you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Without trying to sound too proud, I'd like to think that my approach demonstrates a good deal of thought. And preachers have the right to share with their congregations the teachings God has laid on their hearts as long as they are consistent with the rest of Biblical revelation. Be willing to consider the ideas of these men, and be discerning enough to compare what they say with the Bible. Be humble enough to realize your age/experience in comparison, and whether you agree with them or not, develop convictions that YOU can defend based on God's word.