Was talking with a pastor yesterday, currently on sabbatical, who noticed that many if not most of the church growth churches, have as their model for preaching and ministry a focus on "practices"- do the Christian life this way, and you will have more purpose, deepen your faith, etc. Evangelicals have one shape for this message, but the whole Dorothy Bass "practices" approach emphasizes Christian works, as do some ELCA models for "discipleship."
The alternative, lifted up especially by some significant Lutheran theologians, emphasizes the freedom established by the gospel in the Spirit. So, to oversimplify, you simply proclaim the pure gospel--you are forgiven, saved by faith--and the preacher/church/whoever leaves it at that, taking a stance of trust or faith that the Spirit will be alive in that proclamation, and that God's Word will not return empty.
Different models of grace are operative here. In the first model, grace gives a shape to Christian existence. The emphasis is on "Jesus as Lord", but Lordship guides us into practices. In the second model, Jesus is also Lord, but in the sense of "in Christ you are free indeed- therefore no longer...".
I'm not convinced the two need to be opposed to each other per se, but on the other hand, each would offer up significant critique of the other.
My response in conversation was to envision a third way, Irenaeus or whomever, the way of participation, perichoresis, divinization, which I tend to think encompasses Jesus as Lord both in the declarative as well as the descriptive mode. Inasmuch as we are being made into Christ's body, the church, we are both prescribed a set of practices and set free to live as that body, a body that will have a peculiar freedom in the world in the power of the Spirit that may ever again stand at odds to any prescriptions.
I'm not convinced my third way is completely convincing, but it does seem to have some merit.