"Better a live heresy than a dead orthodoxy"

What is the correct measure for authentic Christianity from a human perspective? Right believing (orthodoxy)? Right Feelings (orthopathy)? Right living (orthopraxy)? I mentioned a few posts back that I was rereading "The Story of Christian Theology" by Roger Olson as preparation for a Sunday school class I may teach in the future on Church history. Yesterday I was reading about the rise of pietism (17th & 18th centuries). Pietism rose out of the Lutheran heritage - as a movement that sought to complete the renewal movement of the protestant reformation. It was a reaction to "dead orthodoxy," seen as shallow and superficial. After the reformation, Lutheran Christianity in Germany "fell into a state of spiritual, moral and theological lethargy." Olson writes, "Overall, however, authentic Christianity was identified with doctrinal and sacramental correctness..." The phrase, "Better a live heresy than a dead orthodoxy," summarizes the views of some pietists of that time.

It is clear that right living, right feeling, and right believing are all very important. But, is one more important than the others? Or does one lead to the others. I've heard people say right belief leads to right practice - and that - if one's practice is wrong - than his/her belief is wrong or not true belief. I agree with that - but thats not necessarily what I'm asking. I mean - from a human perspective/pastoral perspectve - which one do you value more in the context of the church? Just curious.