church that's "real"

Christians can be as critical of church as anyone else, and the criticisms can be perplexing. What does it mean when they're searching for a church that's "real"? And how can a church accommodate this demand?

• My first guess is that a qualification for "real" is that the church doesn't suffer from Christian "masks" of action or attitude. As I wrote before, the masks prevent Christians from working together to achieve comprehensive change in themselves, but overreactions against the masks are also dangerous. My basic point is that while "gritty" confession most definitely is part of the duties of a church, it shouldn't become an overwhelming focus nor should it necessarily be a component of the large-scale public service (i.e. the service intended for people of any level of commitment).
• Another possibility is that "real" simply corresponds to a particular style of worship that happens to appeal to that person. Other styles, especially ones that are perceived as opposites, must be " 'fake' worship that puts on an ostentatious show." Clearly, in this case one worshiper's real is another's fake.
• On a more solid basis, "real" could refer to the complaint that a church discusses Christianity but never accomplishes anything. It's eminently reasonable to expect people who have been reanimated through Christ to participate in the further reanimation of the spiritually-dead world and society. Love and truth are for sharing. Hoarded love and truth probably are counterfeit.
• In a bizarre twist, for some critics "real" doesn't have any relation to a specific church at all. Instead, they appear to reject all churches of Christianity at once. These are the ones who might refuse to call themselves "Christian" for some reason, despite their belief in the same doctrines. They say that the name is itself too misleading to be a real reflection of their precious identity, reputation, and ego. "Christianity's not real, God is real. People in the 'modern' church are deluded and not encountering God. How can I tell? Because they attend church and call themselves Christian." (Of course, there's not much individual churches can do about them until they actually open themselves up to other believers.)
• The ultimate accusation of a lack of "real"-ness is the dreaded state of being unauthentic, which is roughly defined as changing anything in order to reach and attract newcomers. Naturally, once a judgment of unauthentic is handed down, it's flatly impossible to escape it. A desperate attempt to stop being unauthentic merely earns a judgment of being unauthenticly authentic. Like the famous person who didn't want to be part of any club that would accept the likes of him, a search for a "real" church may consist of finding one that's highly unwelcoming (or considered welcoming purely by Christians with "refined holy taste"). Therefore "real" implies unpleasant, badly-presented, esoteric, exotic, etc., and any church too successful at evangelism could never pass as real!