Mere Christianity preface

I just read the preface to Mere Christianity (the second edition that was edited by C.S. Lewis a decade after it's initial publication) and I needed to vent my initial reaction. All in all, I accept Lewis' multiple reasons for editing the book and putting out a different version. Also, I accept his reasoning behind defining what it means to be purely Christian.
The example that he uses is the word "gentleman." It used to mean "man who owned land and was a knight" or something along those lines, while it has since come to mean "good." He basically deplored the idea of further defining the word, as it was meant to categorize, not deeply define. Hence, he says it's not useful for non-Christians to say "isn't it okay or even better to live christ-like lives while not being strictly Christian?" He's not denouncing (so far as I've seen) those individual's lives, but he's saying that you can't apply the term Christian to those people regardless of how good, virtuous, ethical, strong their lives and beliefs are.
That enables one to say "he's a bad Christian" or "he's a searching Christian." The word Christian has no value judgement attached to it, although it implies good things.

Regardless, that was cool because it struck home with me, who has been trying to claim lately that although I am not Christian, it does not mean I am not a "religious" person, or someone who attempts to live by a strong moral code and has an outlook on life that is very similar to what a "good" Christian would live. This helps me realize that I'm still categorizable as an agnostic. We'll see from here, but I can quit stressing this point. People will see and let me know if I'm a good person, or if I could be better. That's all that is important.

But the last thing Lewis ends with is this idea of his intentions for this book. He draws a different analogy, comparing "Christianity" to a house which contains many rooms. To enter the house is to be Christian, but not necessarily one type of Christian over another (at this point he attempts to remain neutral by not even mentioning the many different types there are). These types are represented by the rooms. He says the hall-way, the basic idea of being Christian, is a waiting room, where people test the rooms out to determine which one seems to offer the Truth.

I like his sentiment at the end, don't get me wrong. He says that once you find a room, it's important to obey the house rules and respect the others who have chosen other rooms for theirselves, or are still in the hall, because after all, they're in the same house.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OR THE OTHER TOWNS IN THE STATE? OR THE WORLD?

Damnit, why does this one house have to be all there is? That's the most frustrating thing for me at the moment. I'm faced with a choice, unwillingly, given to me by all my Christian influences. It's "choose to come to the light or forever walk in shadow." You know that choice? The one that makes you think you're making the "bad" choice?

Why can't there be a version of Christianity which says, in which Jesus Christ himself would say, "Hey, believe in me as the One and True Son of God, and believe in the Holy Trinity, ONLY if it is what feels like the truth for you. AND it is completely okay if you choose not to believe in me and my teachings. I won't stop trying to convince you otherwise, but I won't deny you the equality of your decision." Something like that. I mean, some unconscious conformers will gladly label themselves Christian without examining what it is they claim to be.

That's like claiming to be Republican and completely supporting the Republican Party's platform without applying your own personal scrutiny on the individual subjects.

My point? It's OKAY to be different, it's OKAY to live by a different faith, a different set of standards. What's not okay is to go around without examining closely what it is you're claiming. Furthermore, it's not okay to denounce other people's respective beliefs, nor to talk as if your belief is the only right one. Yes, it's right for you. That conviction you may still have. But to argue vehemently, to talk as if your belief structure, your FAITH is the only one that works? For all mankind? I don't want to be a part of that faith structure, ever. And that's the only thing Christianity has been offering me thus far.

Please, C.S. Lewis, in the name of God, in the name of Love, please show me an alternative root, or prove me wrong. You've minutely done so thus far. Let's see what else you have to throw at me.

For the record, I still love you.

~Sean