It is the great struggle of twenty-first century Christianity.
The Benedict-Dreher Option (enclave? ghetto? distinctive community? Christianity modelled on Orthodox Judaism?)
The Parris-Anglican Option (enculturate? osmosis? blurred overlap church/culture? indecision?).
Of course Anglicans can and do opt for the former and steer away from the latter.
But both arguments have powerful points to make, do they not?
In a declining church, in a post-Christian era, when the last vestiges of Christendom in the West are being farewelled (if even noticed), do we Christians, following Rod Dreher and his increasingly well known "The Benedict Option", need to review, clarify and reassert those things that externally demonstrate what we are internally committed to believing? Do we need to make visible daily which community of believers we belong to?
Our identity as a community (tribe?) is at stake and some of us do not know how to present that identity to ourselves and to the world. Or, we know bits of a complete identity but not what the whole might look like (so we go to church but we are not sure what to wear to church, or we offer hospitality to others in our homes but we wonder if we should display a cross at our frontdoor).
Yet, rightly, as Matthew Parris astutely points out, there are distinctive communities of believers in the world, some of which are just plain weird, some of which are biologically dangerous to themselves, and many of which have no growth plan apart from, well, generational fruitfulness. Meanwhile the world changes at 100 kph and reasonable questions of adaptation of belief are asked and answered in communities (such as Anglican ones) which survive in their own peculiar way!
So, at the heart of Christianity's annual calendar, Holy Week, it is worth asking which option will take us forward as those who remember Jesus' death and proclaim it until his coming again?!
Answers in comments of a brief kind ... longer answers in your next book ... :)