Recovering the Sacred Pattern of Common Life

Discovery 7: How Love Becomes Social Architecture

What resonates with you? What challenges you?

Oct 20, 2026

Living Experiments With Common Life

Connecting the good was not the destination. It was where the next stage began.

That first conversation with one farmer had led me into an entire web of relationships I had barely noticed before. I began meeting farmers and ranchers, restaurant owners, people running farmers’ markets and food banks, educators, consumers, foodies, and local business owners.

The more relationships we formed, the more I could see that these seemingly separate people and activities were already interconnected as parts of a larger whole.

But the more I reflected on what was happening in Reno, the more I recognized a pattern I had first encountered more than a decade earlier. My first experiment with this relational approach had been back in 1991 in Logan Heights, an urban San Diego neighborhood struggling with drug dealing, gang violence, and poverty. Instinctively, I brought together community leaders, including a priest, a minister, and others who had never met, to address those common problems.

On two streets in the neighborhood, roughly forty drug dealers were selling openly, while the San Diego Police Department seemed largely unwilling or unable to stop it. We began by organizing local residents to march for peace through the neighborhood once a week, to literally take back their streets.

Then I brought together men from the community and religious leaders from very different backgrounds, including a Catholic priest from a Hispanic church, Black Baptist ministers, and others from outside the neighborhood. Night after night, we marched to the corner where the drug dealers were operating with a simple message: “We love you as a child of God, but we don’t love what you are doing to this community.”

Over time, the dealers left. Not only had the neighborhood reclaimed those streets, but we had activated a broader grassroots community and built new relationships among leaders, congregations, and groups that had previously been largely disconnected from one another.

Those relationships remained long after the immediate crisis had passed, creating a new relational architecture through which people, congregations, community organizations, businesses, and local government could continue working together.

One result was a thriving food co-op that became a locally owned neighborhood store, bringing healthy food into a community where fresh food had been difficult to find.

Again, there was no conversion taking place, and we weren’t gathering for the usual kind of interfaith dialogue, learning about one another’s beliefs in the hope of greater tolerance. We did not begin with our different beliefs, but with what our faiths called us to live together: Love in action. We were building relationships by working together on problems that mattered to everyone. In those streets, we were discovering how to stand together across our differences and bear witness to Love in the public square.

Later, in Reno, we developed a Local Economy Network in 2003, followed by the Local Food System Network in 2005. The settings and needs were very different, yet I kept seeing the same relational pattern take form. Relationships formed around shared Virtues and needs were becoming the foundation for new forms of cooperation.

The Coherence of the Whole

I began to wonder: What else might this relational pattern generate?

That question expanded the way I looked at community life. I started noticing how much of our daily lives was organized around needs we all shared. People need food and water, housing, health and wellness, arts and culture, education and mentoring, livelihoods and a healthy local economy. They need safe neighborhoods, care for the natural environment, and places where faith and spirituality can find expression through service.

In communities everywhere, people are already meeting these needs through businesses, nonprofits, faith communities, civic groups, and local government agencies. Yet much of that good work remains disconnected, even when people are serving the same community.

I had already seen how strongly people could cohere around a shared way of seeing the world, whether in progressive, ecological, systems-change, spiritual, or Christian communities.

But I had been confusing coherence within a part with coherence of the whole.

I had already seen the pattern: we gather with people who think as we do, build community around our shared beliefs, and then try to get others to join us. There can be tremendous good within these communities, but they can still become islands of coherence within a more disconnected society.

The reality is, a whole community is made of people who think very differently from one another. If coming together required others to first see the world as we did, we would simply create another island and ask everyone else to cross over to ours.

Yet my earlier experiences had also taught me that agreement is not the only thing that can connect us. Beneath our different ways of seeing the world is a relational order in which we already participate, rooted, as I understand it, in Divine Love. Now I was putting what I had learned about this deeper coherence into practice in my community work.

And if that underlying belonging was real, it had to become more than an idea. We needed to live it in how we related to one another and what we did together.

I also discovered the “secret sauce” to making the ideal real.

The Virtues, seen as human universals and as expressions of Divine Love, gave us a way to relate across our differences. We did not have to see the world the same way to practice them with one another. The Common Needs gave us places to put those Virtues into action.

Food, health, the environment, the economy, shelter, livelihood, education, and the other basic needs of community life did not require us to think alike. We already shared them. They gave us common ground for working together.

As I had already come to see, we were not creating the underlying coherence by connecting the parts. We were giving social form to that deeper coherence. People were already working to meet these needs, each carrying a piece of the larger whole, often without recognizing how deeply their work was connected.

Nor had I invented the idea of organizing community around shared human needs. I had first encountered it through Sarvodaya and its ten basic needs in Sri Lankan villages. Years later, working in a very different Western urban setting, our experience led us to identify twelve Common Needs. The cultures and circumstances were different. The underlying human needs were not.

The distinction matters. Issues can easily divide us into positions, while Common Needs give us shared places to serve. Every community has to feed its people, care for its health, educate its young, provide places to live, sustain livelihoods, and nurture its cultural and spiritual life.

Together, the Virtues and Common Needs offered a simple foundation for Love in action: shared Virtues practiced in meeting Common Needs.

And as I looked across the community through this lens, I could now see the same pattern at the scale of the whole community: the good was already there, distributed throughout it.

The conventional farmer and the regenerative farmer were both part of feeding the community. The progressive and the conservative both depended upon its economy, schools, neighborhoods, and health. Churches, secular organizations, businesses, nonprofits, citizens, and government agencies were already carrying different pieces of its common life. Each contributed to the good, whether or not they shared our worldview.

The farmer who had once told me, “I’m already doing it,” was helping me see something I had not fully understood at the time. He did not have to join our movement or share our vision of a better society. He already belonged. He was already part of feeding the community. He already carried a piece of the good.

From Islands of Coherence to Whole Communities

If the good is already distributed throughout the community, then food is only one place where it can be connected. Other people are already carrying pieces of that good through neighborhoods, health, education, local business, the arts, the environment, faith communities, and other areas of shared life.

And I did not have to be the one connecting all of it. Other uniters could emerge around these different areas, each building relationships from where they already stood.

The fractal pattern I had been seeing was now taking form at another scale. One person holding space can bring together a small circle. That circle can grow into a wider network. And the same pattern can emerge around many Common Needs at once, with uniters weaving relationships around each one. No one person has to organize or control the whole.

Yet the islands-of-coherence problem could appear at this scale as well. A local food network could become highly connected within itself while remaining disconnected from the health network, the neighborhood network, faith communities, or the local economy around it.

Coherent islands do not make a coherent whole community.

And even when these islands connect with others that share a similar vision, they can simply form a larger island of people who already see the world in much the same way. The network may become larger and more influential while the surrounding community remains outside it.

It was only through my experience in real-world communities that I began to see this.

For years, I had assumed that if enough people joined our separate movements, eventually they would grow large enough to transform society. I could now see the contradiction more clearly. We were trying to overcome a Culture of Separation while our very strategy kept us apart from the larger community.

Without relationships extending beyond our islands and into the larger community, we’d be building alternatives alongside society but not transforming the larger whole.

What we lacked was the connective tissue that could weave these separate networks into the larger life of the community.

The solution was already present in the way we had been building relationships. Much of our network building had grown through trusted third-party connections: one person connecting two others who might otherwise never have found each other. A trusted person could do the same between networks, introducing people from different networks who might otherwise remain disconnected, and this became the basis for creating connections across the community.

I remember one connection between someone working at the City of Reno homeless shelter and a backyard regenerative gardener. One was helping people on the margins; the other was growing local food. Through that connection, the gardener helped the shelter build a rooftop garden.

People working to meet two of the twelve Common Needs had come together through a simple relationship, creating something neither had been doing alone.

That small example revealed something larger about the community as a whole. The needs themselves were not isolated. Food was connected to health; education to children and families; local businesses to livelihoods; and faith communities to service. Housing, environment, safety, culture, and economic life were all intertwined in ways our separate networks and organizations often obscured.

The Community as a Social Ecology

I began to see the community in a radically new light: not as a collection of separate organizations and groups, but as an already interdependent social ecology. Its parts were already deeply connected, even if we failed to recognize our place within the larger whole or continued to live as though we were separate from one another.

My understanding of ecology went back to the early 1980s, while I was studying pilot whale communication for my master’s degree in biology. At that time, I began what would become a decade of spiritual experiences in the wilderness, receiving messages that I recorded in poetic form.

Those experiences revealed that creation itself reflected the underlying Divine Order, with its intricate ecosystems expressing a deeper pattern of interrelatedness that I had first experienced spiritually at age twelve.

In one of those experiences, I wrote:

“Love isn’t sentimental, but is the glue that connects, and keeps the entire Universe whole. From the tiniest sub-atomic particles, to the flowering of plants, to the creation of life, planets, stars, galaxies, Love is there.

I now experience a calm and serenity that I have never known before this moment. The Voice of the Heart of Love nurtures me, saying, ‘Can you feel my living presence inside and all around you? Like a slow-moving stream through a thick forest on a warm day, moving continuously, always there.

This is the experience of Life. Everything is alive and in motion. The trees, animals, birds, fish, and even the rocks, mountains, the wind, the stars, the whole Universe is alive.

You are part of this Life. You are this Life.’”

What I had first experienced spiritually at age twelve, I began to recognize reflected in the natural world during the 1980s. Creation itself reflected that deeper Divine Order through the intricate relationships among living things within ecosystems. And because we ourselves are part of creation, I began to ask a more troubling question:

Why have we organized society in ways that contradict the underlying order to which we belong?

Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, also recognized this underlying interrelatedness of human life. For him, this was not merely a social or political observation, but a statement about the deeper structure of human life. It grew out of a Christian vision in which love of neighbor and love of God were inseparable dimensions of a complete life:

“In a real sense, all life is interrelated. All persons are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

This was not simply a moral or spiritual ideal, or a utopian fantasy. I had seen people begin living from that interdependence in real communities. What seemed idealistic in theory was visible in practice. My role was not to create that interdependence, but to help people recognize it and begin living from it.

For much of my life, however, I had participated in movements built on an inverted premise: they gathered people around a vision of a better world and then sought to spread that vision into the larger society. I had come to see this as a “conversion” model of social change. Over decades of working at the grassroots, I came to see a radically different approach.

We had already seen this different approach taking shape in our food, local economy, and other community networks. Each had grown through relationships among people from different parts of the community. These networks brought together participants who might otherwise have remained disconnected.

That was what excited me.

These were true multi-stakeholder networks that managed themselves without any one organization owning or controlling them. What held them together were the relationships among the participants and a shared practice of intentional mutual benefit.

These were the Symbiotic Networks I had been developing in Northern Nevada: living networks of mutual support where people and organizations remained independent while helping one another flourish. Through them, Divine Love was beginning to take social form in the everyday life of the community.

Just as no single person had to hold a whole network, no single organization or movement had to hold the whole community.

And as these connections multiplied, a relational infrastructure began to form across the community, linking networks without placing any one of them at the center.

Beyond the individual Symbiotic Networks, I was beginning to see the same pattern at every scale. Relationships connected people into circles, circles grew into networks, and those networks began linking with one another across the larger community. I would eventually come to understand this as the Ancient Blueprint taking social form.

The forms were emerging, but the underlying coherence was already there. We were not trying to align everyone around a single conception of the good.

We were building relationships among people and networks already carrying pieces of the good throughout the community, allowing the different parts to recognize their place within the whole.

Eventually, I came to call this process of connecting the people and networks carrying the good throughout a community Connecting the Good. As these relationships grew, the separate parts of community life could begin to function as a more coherent whole.

The islands do not have to disappear. Each can remain distinct, carrying its own gifts, relationships, and ways of serving. They can become more connected without becoming alike.

The aim was not to replace these different communities and networks with a single coherent community of our own. It was to weave relationships among them so that the existing community, in all its differences, could become more coherent.

As those relationships grew, bridges formed between the islands, allowing a larger coherence to emerge without erasing their differences.

Love is the Architecture Between Us

Bridging those islands of coherence revealed something more. Connecting the parts was only the beginning. The relationships themselves were giving rise to something new.

I saw this in our local economy network.

I remember one evening in 2003 when we covered the walls with butcher paper and asked people to name locally owned businesses they actually knew. One by one, people stood up and added names. Before long, nearly 150 businesses covered the walls. Only later did I realize that we had mapped more than businesses. We had mapped not just a local economy, but a web of relationships and trust.

And as that web widened, something else became apparent. We weren’t bringing together only businesses that already thought of themselves as green, or food producers who identified as organic or regenerative. We were starting with the community as it already existed and bringing people into relationship across those differences.

Ironically, widening the circle strengthened the more focused networks. Rather than diluting them, it gave them a larger ecosystem of relationships, customers, collaborators, and potential allies in which to grow. They could deepen their particular work without making it the boundary of the community itself.

I saw this happen with the very first farmer I had called earlier in my community-building work. When we met, he was a conventional farmer with few connections to the urban community in Reno. Over the years, as his relationships within the community grew, so did the possibilities for his farm.

With a growing market for his produce, he expanded into organic farming and became one of our strongest supporters of farm-to-table and community-supported agriculture. Years later, whenever I saw him at community events, he would still thank me for that first connection, which had helped expand both his business and his relationships with the broader community.

We had welcomed him as he was, without requiring him to embrace an organic or regenerative vision of farming as a condition for belonging. The larger food system gave us common ground where people with very different ideas about farming could begin working together.

Through the relationships that followed, strengthening the existing food system created new possibilities for everyone. Conventional and organic farmers, restaurants, consumers, and the more focused food networks could each grow without requiring the others to become like them.

Looking back on decades of work in the trenches at the grassroots, I now recognize what had been at work all along.

Love itself was the foundation from which I approached people across the community. Rather than trying to attract them to a particular movement’s vision, identity, or even my own agenda, I discovered that Love itself could become the unifying attractor.

Some embraced Love as a religious or spiritual foundation. Others recognized that a Culture of Connection offered a better way to live and work together than the competition and fragmentation of the Culture of Separation. Even when Love wasn’t their conscious motivation, they could experience it through genuine welcome and service, building trust across those differences.

I began to see how this same approach could transform the relationships between organizations and movements. Love as Architecture was not another movement competing with them. It was a new way to connect and strengthen their work within a larger field of action.

For those already devoted to a movement or organization, I am not suggesting that you abandon your work to join something else. Your particular mission matters. But I am challenging the assumption that even our most successful movements, working in isolation, can transform the larger society.

The missing work is between us. We need an architecture that connects the threads already present in our communities, not another movement standing above the others. We don’t all have to do the same work, but some of us must take responsibility for building those bridges.

This is the Third Way I had begun to see taking shape in Reno. Rather than seeking to control and reform the existing system or building alternatives in isolation, we can connect the good already present into a new Culture of Connection within the whole community.

In Reno, I saw Love becoming social architecture, not as an ideal imposed on the community, but as a living pattern of relationships grounded in Love and the universal Virtues.

People, businesses, movements, and institutions were beginning to connect their efforts around the twelve Common Needs of the community.

Restaurant owners who had once regarded one another primarily as competitors began sharing what they knew, helping one another, and cooperating where competition had once defined their relationships.

At the time, I did not think of this as economic infrastructure. I thought we were simply building relationships. Only later did I see this: as Love takes form in relationships, it shapes the economic structures we build together.

Share Symbiotic Culture

Go To Discovery 8: How Love Enters Economic Life