You won’t accept this of course, since it is a Baptist scholar who said it, but here goes:
“Because gnosticism ultimately spread throughout the ancient world to become one of the most compelling philosophies of the first several centuries AD, it is natural that it exert a subtle influence upon orthodox Christianity. There can be little doubt that the contempt for the flesh which resulted in the asceticism, celibacy, and monasticism of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD can be laid squarely at the feet of Gnostic influence.”
Gnosticism, however, was not ‘a” doctrine. it is an umbrella term that covers Jewish, Christian, and pagan forms of mysticism during a period of several hundred years. It might even be used to cover Mormonism or, get this, some Baptist/Pentacostals ideas. Gnostic distain for the flesh led paradoxically to hedonistic practices. If the flesh is worthless, then the soul remains unstained by immorality. Paul had to warn his followers that to be outside the Law did not mean they were free of its constraints, only that the Law does not save.
IAC,
Western monasticism aimed to avoid the excesses of asceticism by anchoring a person in a community, by placing him under obedience.
If you read St. Benedict’s Rule you might recognize that it establishes
very practical standards. The desert Fathers sought to escape society. The Benedictines lived separate from society but never totally apart from it. It was the monks who evangelized Europe in effect by colonizing it. It was the monks who performed similar roles in the Eastern Church. The married clergy, like the English clergy, lived very settled lives, serving mainly the local parish. It is noteworthy that after then confiscation of the monasteries, their lands were given to the rich more often than to the Church. Consequently social services—hospitals and schools—were reduced in number until later when a system of private giving—encouraged by the Puritans—began to create new institutions. Schools, hospitals, orphanages are a legacy of the church.