I have really been blown away lately by how many people view religion as simply philosophy. Folks have begun to open up to me concerning their own beliefs and almost without exception their views seem to amount to little more than a worldview based on preference. This attitude is not limited to any particular "faith"; it seems to exist across the board. How can people pay so little attention to what may, when you really get down to it, be the only thing that really matters?

It is especially mind-boggling when we talk about the historicity of the Resurrection. After all, that's what Christianity boils down to. Either it happened or it didn't. There is no in between. If it didn't happen then even Paul agrees that Christianity is foolishness. But, if it did... oh my goodness. But, people seem to be content going through life acknowledging that Christ may have actually miraculously risen from the grave (thus fully validating any and all of His claims) and, at the same time, denying every shred of the gospel other than "love your neighbor". If a person wants to deny belief in the Resurrection, that's fine. At least they're consistent. We can talk about that. But, to admit the possibility and then blow it off is just unimaginable.

A few weeks ago, Andie (my 11 year old daughter) and I were discussing the necessities of life. She had made the mistake of telling me that she "needed" a particular video game. The statement was not all that atypical or unreasonable, but the timing was very unfortunate, interrupting the pity party that I was throwing myself on the heels of a "bad day" at work. I began to quiz her on little snippets of knowledge that we all learned in second or third grade science class. Specifically, she was asked to name the three basic needs of the human being. Of course, the textbook answer is food, clothing, and shelter. And, as I was about to ask which of the three her video game fell into, she informed me that love is also a requirement.

Being decent church-going folk, I suppose that little statement should not have surprised me, but it did. I thought about it, we discussed it, we consulted the Bible, and, in the end, I agreed with her. (Incidentally, the pity party lost its appeal as soon as Christ entered the conversation.)

That little conversation entered my mind this morning as I was on my way to work. In doing so, it begged a deeper question: Which is more important to man? To be loved or to love someone else? The intuitive answer is that we would rather be the beloved than the one who does the loving. That was my original position, but I no longer believe it to be true. There are a several reasons why and I will provide one or two here.

The first has to do with babies. Certainly, most people would never make the claim that an infant is capable of love. I suppose there is someone somewhere that would make such a claim, but this assertion would be based more on emotion than reality. And, if they are not capable of love, then why do we have such a fascination with them? Pause for a moment and picture an infant in your mind. Unless you just completed changing a particulary funky diaper before reading this blog, you are probably smiling. The corners of your mouth may not be curled up, but you probably have a smile on your brain. Why? Because that little poop factory is as close to innocence as a human being can ever come. It is a creature that not only requires love, it demands it. It is willing to receive all the love that we have to give. It is easy to love, even though it cannot love you back (not yet, at least). Fortunately, we were made for the task.

So, why do so many people feel compelled to have babies and raise families? Is it to love or to be loved? If our motivation is the latter then we are fools. Parenting is a very poor "investment". In general, it is absolutely impossible for a child's love for the parent to come within an order of magnitude of the love that the parent has for the child. (I say "in general" because, like everything else in this depraved world, there are unfortunate exceptions.) We, as parents, invest far more love, hope, fear, and everything else than our children can possible return. If our motivation for producing them were to receive love, that market would have crashed a long time ago.

By the way, I understand the naturalist will explain the desire to have children by bringing up the instinct to perpetuate our own offspring which we seem to share with the animal kingdom. But, this response will not do. For, it does not explain why a couple is willing to adopt a child that is of no relation to themselves or to anyone that they know. Furthermore, that couple will raise that child with as much if not more of a loving attitude than most biological parents.

I also feel that this yearning to love is perhaps the essence of what it means to be created in God's image. He certainly would not have created us out of a desire to be loved because we cannot produce love on our own. He is the Source of all love; we merely reflect it back to Him. If we fool ourselves into believing that we actually love Him (or anyone else) out of our own volition, we become like the child who thinks he is really buying his parent a gift when the source of the funds is the parent himself.

And, finally, we must look at Christ's demands. We are to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. And, we are to love our neighbor as ourself. Think about that for a moment. Everything He teaches or demands of us serves to drive us to be more like Him. By commanding us to love, God first and then our neighbors, He has provided us with the essence of that image. God is love.

Well, I turned 40 yesterday. I'm not really sure what all the hoopla is about. The day came and went and I feel no different than I did two days ago. However, I must confess that I do have a growing urge to buy a red Corvette and a box of "Just for Men" haircolor. I'm sure it will pass though.

Seriously, why do people flip out over the birthdays ending in zero? I have a friend at work who completely changed his wardrobe at 40. He started wearing Armani and gelled his hair. His whole demeanor changed. Another friend went on a total health kick. She started working out six days a week, sometimes twice a day. She lost about fifteen pounds and seriously toned up. Of course, both of them are "back to normal". He's back to khakis and loafers; she no longer looks like she can kick my butt.

I suppose it could have something to do with a sense of falling behind schedule. Perhaps folks set goals for their 40th anniversary on this planet and panic when they faill to achieve them. But, both of the friends I mentioned above are very successful (by worldly standards). They have big pay checks, big offices, big houses, and beautiful families.

Maybe we gain a sense of our own mortality when we turn 40. It wasn't that long ago that I thought 40 was really old. Of course, it is entirely probable that only old people think 40 isn't old. Okay, so I'm old. Big whoop. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but I think I'm okay with that. The closer I am to death, the closer (temporally) I am to Christ. That can't be a bad thing.

And, maybe that's it. If we begin to contemplate our own death and Christ is not in the picture, I suppose it would be easy to panic. It would be tempting to try to recapture our youth by any superficial means at our disposal. But, if Christ is in the picture, then nothing else matters. It is counted as loss for His sake.

Groovy. (Did I just say "groovy"? Wow, I guess I am old)