Ideally, we all should have tension between them, as we need to have real-life forms of the concepts - prayers to pray - as much as the more spiritual form. Take CS Lewis, the author of the distinction, who is often mistaken as being very high church, while repeatedly speaking about the danger of erecting your own god and declaring it to be God. Some Church administration or forms of discipline or creeds are very much a necessity, or the tradition will dissipate. I think the best of all embody this tension: thinking here of people like Francis of Assisi, who critiques the worldliness, but founds an Order and endows churches and chapels; or the Cluniac Gregory VII, who fights for the spirituality of the Church, yet becomes the poster-child of Church-Imperial tension; or Thomas More or Erasmus with their renaissance humanism, but support for the established Church. Humans are flesh, and the breath of God needs to be incarnated for us to understand it. I see the need for myth and story in much the same light, to not explicitly make it concrete as then you substantially miss the point as often as not - as happens with many Trinitarian and Incarnational disputes in my opinion.
Doestoyevsky is another such figure. He was a worldly writer with a gambling problem, but he spent a lot of time with certain monks. His writings reflect this, and this tension. Think of atheist Ivan who wrote the piece on how the Church was to absorb the State in Brothers Karamazov, which the one priest endorses - but the implication is this is the death of the Church, coming from the pen of Ivan, but it seems reasonable in the way he frames it. In many ways, it reflects how Marxism did become a Church-State, which ultimately thus failed even the Marxist ideals in the Soviet system. Ippolit in The Idiot serves a similar function, as an attempt to make too concrete - or even Myshkin and Rogoshin, who are ultimately mirror images and both devout. The Spiritual Myshkin cannot function in the world and starts and ends up mad, and the worldly Rogoshin ends ups only suffering for it. I don't know if I am pushing the metaphor too far, but both play their hand in the death of their bride Nastasya. All of this in addition to the tension in Karamazov of Ferrapont and Zosima, or Devils where the empty Stavrogin acts as the central hope of a whole score of idealists, and Father Tikhon ultimately does not give him what he seeks. Or the famous Grand Inquisitor story, again by Ivan, who condemns Jesus and will execute Him as His ways are too hard, yet releases Him anyway after He kissed him.
The point is not where one lies on the spectrum, but that you should not allow too much movement to either side, lest you end up a Pharisee or an Essene. Perhaps depending on your needs, you should oscillate within it like a pressure guage in a dynamic system. I think the Eucharist embodies this quite well, real food for Real Food, flesh for Flesh, symbol and allegory and embodiment (although that is whole other level of Christian disagreement). Doestoyevsky understands far more than I think I ever will, I sometimes feel.
