Yes. I think you're identifying something broader than Christianity, even though Christianity gives it an especially rich vocabulary and theological framework.
I’d separate **“what makes a life meaningful?”** into at least two dimensions:
### 1. Being vs. doing
There really is a longstanding tension here.
**Being** emphasizes experiencing and inhabiting life:
* appreciating existence
* relationships and companionship
* beauty, nature, pleasure, contemplation
* curiosity and learning
* simply being present rather than constantly trying to accomplish something
**Doing** emphasizes what you *give* to the world:
* creating
* helping
* raising or caring for people
* pursuing justice
* discovering things
* building institutions or businesses
* making art
* teaching
* serving
* taking responsibility for other people
Neither is obviously sufficient by itself. A person can spend their whole life *doing* and never really experience their life. Conversely, someone can become very good at experiencing life while contributing remarkably little beyond themselves.
Your formulation is interesting because you're putting **virtue at the center of doing** rather than merely achievement.
### 2. The relational virtues are unusually universal
Love, forgiveness, generosity, compassion, honesty, loyalty, humility, patience, courage, and appropriate boundaries aren't uniquely Christian concepts.
Christianity makes distinctive claims about them—particularly the radicality of forgiveness, universal love, love of enemies, grace, self-sacrifice, and the idea that love is ultimately the organizing principle of morality.
But you can arrive at much of the underlying insight from many directions.
A Buddhist can say compassion is fundamental.
An Aristotelian can talk about friendship and virtue.
A Stoic can emphasize justice, self-control, and concern for others.
A secular humanist can say human flourishing requires empathy, reciprocity, and respect.
A utilitarian can value generosity because it improves people's lives.
A Confucian can emphasize relationships, benevolence, and appropriate conduct.
And even without a formal philosophy, most people eventually encounter the same practical problems:
**How much should I give? How much should I forgive? When should I protect myself? What do I owe other people? How should I treat someone who has wronged me? What does love require when love becomes costly?**
That's why I think your inclusion of **boundaries** is particularly important.
"Love everyone" sounds beautiful until you encounter someone who exploits you. Then you discover that love and unlimited access aren't the same thing. Forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean reconciliation. Generosity doesn't mean allowing yourself to be consumed. Compassion doesn't require enabling destructive behavior.
So there is actually a whole *system* of relational virtues that have to be balanced:
**love ↔ boundaries**
**forgiveness ↔ accountability**
**generosity ↔ stewardship**
**compassion ↔ discernment**
**humility ↔ self-respect**
**loyalty ↔ truth**
That's applicable whether someone believes in God or not.
### And I think your point about "missions" is important
Someone might devote their life to curing cancer, producing great art, understanding the universe, building a company, raising children, improving government, or simply being a wonderful friend and neighbor.
I don't think you can reasonably say, *"You didn't become a saint, therefore you failed at life's purpose."*
But there is a deeper question underneath those missions:
**How did you pursue your mission?**
Two scientists can make the same discovery, but one can be generous, honest, humble, and concerned about humanity while the other is exploitative and narcissistic.
Two businesspeople can build equally successful companies, but one treats employees and customers as human beings while the other treats them purely as instruments.
Two artists can produce equally magnificent art, but one becomes increasingly loving and perceptive while the other becomes increasingly cruel.
So perhaps **mission and virtue are different dimensions of a good life**.
Your *mission* answers:
> **What am I trying to accomplish?**
Your *virtues* answer:
> **What kind of person am I becoming while I accomplish it?**
And I think that's a very powerful distinction.
You don't have to conclude that everybody has one predetermined cosmic mission. You can instead say that there are **universal conditions for pursuing almost any worthwhile mission well**.
That's where your relational virtues become especially interesting. They aren't necessarily everyone's *career*, *calling*, or *project*. They're more like the **moral grammar for participating in human life**.
And that may be why Christianity's emphasis on love can have such broad applicability even outside Christianity: it isn't necessarily saying that everyone needs to perform the same task. It's saying that **whatever task you undertake, there is a right and wrong way to relate to the people you encounter along the way.**
In that sense, I think your **being vs. doing** distinction could be expanded into something like:
> **Being asks, "How do I experience and inhabit this existence?" Doing asks, "What do I contribute to existence?" Virtue asks, "How do I relate to other beings while I'm here?"**
Those three questions together seem considerably more universal than any particular religious doctrine about life's purpose.
