Good morning everyone. This is another question to satisfy my curiosity. In general, what are the views of the 21st century Church of Muscular Christianty? Here is the Wiki page on the concept: Muscular Christianity - Wikipedia
"The Cranmer Option" https://northamanglican.com/the-cranmer-option/ Waging war on the heathen world through the liturgy and deep spiritual formation. As contrasted with the "Benedict Option", retreating into invisible receding communities.
Rod Dreher (an EO Christian if I recall) has advocated a variant of the "Benedict Option". I don't think much of it, if for no other reason than hunkering down in a fortress to "wait it out" flies in the face of the Great Commission. The nations are our mission field. We are called to go among them and preach the Gospel. As to the "muscular Christianity" thing, it's a relic of the Victorian era mostly, a thin veneer of Rudyard Kipling overlaid on ancient Greek notions of masculine spirituality and conduct in the world (though there is a bit of Roman Stoicism in there as well). I find orthodox Christianity sufficiently manly to obviate the need for an XTREME!!! version of it, but maybe that's just me.
This is reminiscent of the Jewish idea behind shalom, that we treat our body the same way we are to treat our soul, whom of which is granted to us by God, being the creator "of all flesh" (Jeremiah 32.27), who we live through. So long as the Gospel is spoken with courage, integrity, and conviction, God uses our differences to bring us closer together. This way my first impression, at least, going by experience and what's familiar to me. The simple are made wise with gentleness; the callous shown 'tough love' directed towards humility.
His option was forming thick Christian communities within the world but never running for the hills and only hunkering down. If I remember right he is still big on reaching out and forming new Christians.
I should re-read the book. It seemed to me that Dreher was advocating in some sense a re-creation of the monastic life, a Christian enclave in the world but not of the world. I think Dreher misdiagnoses the illness and thus comes up with the wrong remedy. I fully agree with a more robust and engaged church as a place where Christians can gather and have fellowship for more than an hour or two a week, but it seems to me that good churches have always done this. My church has so much going on -- both in terms of formal programs and lay-led prayer groups etc. -- that it can take up every waking moment of your day if you choose. I understand that not all churches are like this, but to me this is more an issue with the congregation than the Church per se. If your church only gathers for an hourlong service once a week, something is badly wrong. It would be difficult to re-create the medieval Christian mindset in the modern world, but I think this is exactly to some extent what is needed. Not a reformation of church practice so much as a reformation of Christian life in the congregation. Catechism must become mandatory -- we can no longer assume a basic familiarity with Christian theology in the population (or even among professing Christians, for that matter). We must emphasize not just the liturgical and sacramental aspects of our faith, but the reasons why these rituals exist and why we practice them. We must equip professing Christians with sound doctrine, to be enforced through wise (but firm) discipline. I don't hate the contemplative life. There is a place for a purely intellectual pursuit of Christianity, of a life devoted to prayer and glorification of God. But we are commanded to carry the Gospel into the world, not to hoard it and obsess over it like Gollum with the One Ring.
I probably should reread it also. I gave the book to a friend to read so maybe when I get it back I can. I do follow his blog though and he fleshes it out more and more as time has gone on.