Here's Tim Keller opining . . .
On "Missional Church vs. Seeker Church":
On "Missional vs. Evangelistic":
Each video (from the Desiring God media library) is less than two minutes long.
I'm a words guy, so there is in me to some extent a skepticism about the value of using this "new" word missional. It is, by many indications, emerging church newspeak, and so I wonder if it has a shelf life. I am weary of church trends. And many of those who speak from within the movement -- Dan Kimball, for instance -- have said they consider "emerging" and "missional" as synonymous. And then some churches use both as qualifiers (eg. "We are an emerging missional church"), as if they have distinct meanings.
My understanding of missional, subject as newspeak may be to the whims of prevailing understanding, is essentially this: It is about discipling and empowering Christians in the community to then become "missionaries" in the culture.
I think some, if not many, of the attractional aspects of the seeker church movement have value and can be maintained (in the right context), not just in terms of style or practicality but in the appealing notion that a community of reconciliation can be amazing grace to sinners in need of a home. But by and large, I see the missional approach, as stated above, as more in keeping with the Great Commission.
Mark Driscoll defines missional more directly in these two short videos.
So I resonate with the missional concept. I worry it is a label that is dated already and will be replaced by the next new thing in a few years, but of the terminology of today, it is I think the most right.
In my view it's not really "new" anyway. It attempts to do what churches used to do once upon a time -- feed and grow and commission followers of Jesus to spread the Gospel.
In terms of "doing church," I guess I'd be in favor of a good ecclesiological gumbo.
What I envision is a classical church exalting Christ in a modern context.