The question in my mind was: what happens if the Lord leads someone in the church meeting, to say something, or to sing a particular song, which is not a part of the normal service?
Here we have to clarify what is meant by church meeting, since there are meetings where this could occur, and meetings where the Lord would not move someone to do such a thing because it would disrupt a prayer or hymn that the congregation was singing or, particularly, disrupt the Eucharist.
St. Paul directed that Christian worship be done decently and in order, and thus the Lord would not do that in the context of a Holy Communion service, because that would obviously cause serious disruption. There are times and places where such things do happen, but not during the Divine Liturgy (which to be clear, refers to the Holy Communion service and only the Holy Communion service) or another sacrament, such as Baptism, or Holy Matrimony. If someone made a spontaneous utterance during the consecration of the Eucharist it would be as disruptive and as inappropriate in the context of our worship as if someone did that during the vows of a marriage or during a funeral, or the baptism of an infant.
Now, there are times and places where someone might well be moved to make a spontaneous utterance by the Lord, and such things have happened.
I like quite a few hymns that focus on doctrine myself; although, I don't think it's necessary to avoid emotion; the two can complement each other.
Regarding emotion, the concern of the early church fathers related to emotional manipulation. That being said, there is an emotional context in much Orthodox hymnody, particularly in the polyphonic hymns of the Slavonic church and the Armenian Apostolic church, but even in those churches that use Byzantine Chant there is plenty of emotion; one can tell joyful moments from sorrowful moments with great ease.
Indeed; but, spontaneity?
Yes - very spontaneously, albeit respectfully. To be clear, in the Divine Liturgy, that is to say, the Eucharist, or at other sacramental services such as Holy Matrimony, or during the singing of the sets of hymns of Matins, Vespers and so on, or when grace is being sung before a meal in the Trapeza (every Orthodox Divine Liturgy and most other services except for evening services is usually followed by a meal in the church hall, and yes, we sing grace; if a prayer is not silent, it is usually sung by the choir and/or the congregation; in the Eastern liturgical rites almost everything is sung, unlike in the West, that said there are Orthodox Christians who use the Western Rite, mainly in the Antiochian church), we do not do anything that would distract other worshippers, so obviously when I have been moved to pray in the Divine Liturgy or at Matins or Vespers I have not prayed aloud.
It's not my experience, but it doesn't sound strange to me.
Good.
I've nothing against liturgy, per se (it could certainly be part of a godly service), as long as there is also room for the Lord to lead as he wishes (i.e. not a fully set service, with everything planned beforehand).
There is room for spontaneous inspired utterances within the context of church meetings. Its just that one doesn’t do it during the Divine Liturgy proper, because the congregation is focused on prayer. The Lord leads us as he wishes by virtue of the fact that we are there and are praying; obviously the use of a liturgy by a Christian congregation implies that the Lord has led us to assemble and pray in this manner.
In the early church as well a clear distinction was made between those times when the people might make extemporaneous individual prayers and those times of solemn worship in which the congregation sings together.
The presbyter may pray extemporaneously, but what about people in the congregation generally?
With regards to an individual’s prayer one can pray extemporaneously at any time. However during sacramental services one should not offer such a prayer aloud as explained above.
The Quakers have gone to the opposite extreme. As is often the case, I think that a middle path is best (some structure, but also some room for flexibility; and I would certainly never put "inner light" equal to, never mind above, Holy Scripture; in fact, it would need to be tested by Holy Scripture).
The opposite extreme to the Quakers would be the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Science services where everything is controlled and dictated centrally and all churches preach the same sermon and sing the same hymns which are dictated from a central office, which I find to be chilling.
That is not what liturgical worship looks like.
My theology could probably be described as Reformed, Baptist, Charismatic (with caveats - I don't agree with some Charismatic doctrines and practices).
The Orthodox are not cessationist but our experience of what the Charisms are tends to differ greatly from the charismatic opinion about what those constitutes. For example, I’ve met Orthodox monastics who were prophetic and I’ve experienced what some believe is speaking in tongues, but it was entirely different from the charismatic experience. Additionally we believe seeking after spiritual experiences can be dangerous and that one should rather adopt a position of extreme humility regarding such things. There is somewhat of a different mindset compared to charismatics.
Some of the charismatic practices that deeply concern us are the “Toronto blessing”, “Being slain in the spirit”, violent shaking and convulsing, and so on.
Regarding healing, I myself have seen someone be miraculously healed through the sacrament of the anointing of the sick with oil, however, we would never encourage someone to not seek conventional medical care. Also the charismatics who preach the prosperity gospel are very troubling for us.
