Gordon makes a good point in his comment to my post. People are looking for reality, and if that means being relevant as well then so be it. On the other hand, following trends and being a trendy church can have significant problems.

If I look honestly at my church we are not a collection of up to date trendy people who are in to the latest fashion, have a great knowledge of art or necessarily buy or like the latest music. There are a few around that like this and that, but as I said not loads.

To elaborate on that, there are many of us, even in close friendship groups that have very varied tastes in music and practice. An example could be that I like Gregorian Chant type music, others in my friendship circle hate it! A relaxed day for me would be to wander around The Tate, for my friends it would be something wildly different! That is just one small example of a difference in a small group.

If we take that wider, into the whole church of 300 or so people in Gillingham, the tastes are much more diverse. I do not need to do a survey to know that just personal tastes in music would vary from Mozart to Eminem. Newspaper readership would vary from The Times to The Sun (although some might think there was no difference there!). Many would watch soaps avidly, others avoid most TV like the plague.

The differences in tastes are massive. In such an environment how on earth can we ever hope to achieve a church that is relevant to everyone. St Marks in Gillingham looks to do this by having a variety of services which I think is a sound plan. With this, though, you hear the complaint from some that ‘this church needs to decide what it stands for’. Effectively I think that means ‘I want my type of preference all the time’.

Take that a step further into our community and the tastes again could be even more diverse. How on earth do we look to be relevant to the whole community? Is it even possible to do so?

This post is taking a lot longer to get around to what I thought it was hat I was going to write before I started to write! Sorry about that! It is, after all, my tendency to become irrelevant and unreal in my drivel and thoughts that I know some of you love so much about me!

If we try to be relevant to the extent that we are acting then that will have disastrous results. Gordon is right, reality is more important.

As church if we pretend we are something we are not to attract or keep people then the act will eventually fall down. If we are secret Eminem fans and pretend our style is more in the vein of Schubert then we will not be able to carry that off for very long.

We need to be real. WE need to be genuine. We need to be honest. We need to be realistic. I think that means we need to be who we are. We need to take pride in the person, with all our preferences and tastes, that God created us to be. To be real means we need to be honest and open. A kind of ‘this is who I am’ type approach.

Obviously, in an extreme form that could lead to selfishness of an unwanted degree. So, we need to be real and at the same time acknowledge that others also have the responsibility, freedom and right to be themselves as well. They can and need to be genuine and real too.

What saddens me so much in churches and groups (not just Christian) that I have been in is the attitude where someone has partly grasped this ‘you need to be real’ attitude. Partly grasped because they have fallen into the trap of thinking their reality is the one reality that everyone should follow! The this is how it is for me so it must be the same for you attitude so quickly kills off the chances of others to be their real God created selves.

Again, in an extreme form, that type of attitude leads to the arguments we have seen in the past in the church, such as women’s ordination, and to those we see now such as sexuality and who can give communion (which I know confuses many non-Anglicans. Well this anglican is confused too over all the fuss … but more about that at a later date!)

I wonder if secretly we all think we would feel more secure if everyone around us was the same. I’m wondering now if this is a bit of a control thing. Do we, as individuals, want to control those around us because it makes us feel safer? That’s a bit of a worrying question that I think I nee to consider a bit more.

So, back to where we were, we need to be real to be relevant.

In that sense I think St Marks may have a good approach with its ideas of having different services and experiences. If we agree that we are a church that stands for helping people to connect with God in a relevant way, then due to the very diverse nature of our society we need to provide an equally diverse set of experiences or opportunities for people to connect with God.

On the other hand, maybe others are right. Should we concentrate on one or two styles, and tell those that prefer those other styles to go and find somewhere else that meets their needs?

Is realness in diversity the correct way to go, or is it realness in a more focused way?

I really do not know the answer, there might not even be one. I do know, though, that the idea of telling people to go somewhere else does not sit easy with me. No, worse than that, it grates painfully.

Surely, somehow, in our real and genuine outlook we can provide a church for all.