[The following discussion continues comments made in e-mails at Unity Institute and opens the floor for comments and critical analysis.]
My definition of a sacrament is any event (or place) during which the presence of God becomes more readily discernible (Glimpses of Truth). This is a broadening of Martin Luther's basic idea that God's real presence can be discovered in the communion elements, even though there is no more "God" in the bread and cup than anyplace else. It's the conscious awareness of the omnipresent God which rendered some activity a "sacrament"--which by the way is a Latinized translation of the original Greek word mysterion, i.e., mystery, or sacred awareness beyond rational thought.
Since Bishop John Shelby Spong hails from a "high church" tradition (Anglicanism = Episcopalianism in the USA), the sacraments are much more important for him than they would be for, say, someone like Martin Luther King, Jr., whose background was the "low church" tradition of the American Baptist Church. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Anglicans and others of the "high church" traditions consider the sacraments to be the central act of worship; without holy communion there is no worship in those churches. Unity represents a "low church" tradition in that we have never held the sacraments to be so central, except for one..."The Silence" might arguably be considered our central sacrament, as Ray Nelson remarked in class yesterday.
Anyway, we cannot simply dismiss our of hand the ideas about discerning the presence of God through prayer, ritual, and tradition, and since so many Unity people emerge from (or still participate in) "high church" traditions, it seems to be a good discussion to have. Manmade rituals are attempts to perceive the divine; the discussion might fruitfully consider what works, and what doesn't, for people in the 21st century.
Your thoughts?
