The problem is that this degree of spirituality, causes people to neglect their own physical bodies. As we see in the history of asceticism. To the point that people, monks, even neglect to feed themselves adequately and so forth. Often ascetics starved to death.

For this and other reasons, extreme spirituality is a bad thing. And my – admittedly vague – memory of F & G, was that they became all too disdainful of material things. For that and other reasons, the Church rightly condemned them. In spite of some interesting spiritual insights.

All: Guyone & F, and their spirituality, “quietism,” are interesting, but I’d be careful around them. Basically, F. attempted to present a rational vision of Catholicism, to attract Protestants. But finally I’d say, his quietism – his program of selflessness, openness, elimination of “desire” for material things – borrowed far more heavily, from Buddhism. From the Buddhist program of self-annihilation, suppressing our personal “desires” and passions (for often material things); so as to attain spirituality, or become one with the universe/God. So that even a physically starving Buddha was OK. (Though so was an overweight Buddha, to be sure).

Seems like a useful experiment. And parts of its extreme spirituality, anti-materialism, reflect similar things in the ascetic side of the New Testament. But to be sure, Mme. G. seem to gets a little sentimental /Gnostic, over-spiritual, at times; lost in too-personal spiritual musings, in her spirituality. While F. was finally severely censured by the Church.

IN many ways, the movement reminds me very much of the moment that the early church, began drifting into Gnosticism. The moment when many began to settle on a violently hierarchical dualism. A dualism that said that the whole universe is divided into two things – 1) matter, and 2) spirit. And of these two, all material things – “flesh,” “world,” “body,” “possessions,” “passions of the flesh,” the passion for material things – were bad. Whereas it was claimed, only mind or “spirit” was immortal, and good.

The problem with the extreme hierarchical dualism of spirituality though, was – and is – in part that 1) the Old Testament God made the material “world” and said it was “good.” So Gnosticism and other forms of spirituality ended up condemning the Old Testament God, who made all material things, as evil.

Then too there is a practical problem with spirituality. The 2) the other problem was that, as James 2.14 ff noted, those religions that only supply ideas, spirits, but not material things, leave us materially, physically, starving to death.

So was the Church right, in condemning these movements? ALong with the extreme spirituality, the extreme anti-materialism, of Gnosticism?

Personally, I prefer a more realist theology; one that acknowledges far more importance to this physical, even allegedly “secular” world. And God “made flesh.”

Congrats, dad! Very exciting, both of my kids are October babies; so welcome to the club, brother :-).

I have some thoughts on your post here, let me gather them; and maybe I’ll be back with them to offer something usually known as feedback.