I understand that you don't disregard the so called "prayer". And I can see an important value in contextualize it. I agree also that there is a lot of misunderstanding and stupid rudeness that search for base in the "prayer". In AAGT email list discussion on the issue there were many and passionate points of view...
I think also that an important context for the "prayer" is the conception of GT. From what I understand of this conception, the "prayer" is very good, and has nothing to do with rudeness.
I think that you agree that "union" is dialogical, and is specifically the encounter of 'alterities', which respect and affirm respectively partener's and their own othernesses.
As you maybe know, what I get surprised is a trend to disregard "the culture of the time of Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman". (I don't say that you do that!) I understand that it is interesting to contextualize and criticize, and I respect who competently dare to do so. But this sort of disregard is not what I understand by "contextualize". Why to enphasize presumed bad aspects of what Perls Generation did and don't give the adequate enphasis in their achivements? This is not creative or new at all.
Over enphasis in separateness of contact in Perls? Maybe. Here I think that historical, anthropological, contextualization is very necessary. With this contextualization we'd maybe understand better what looks like over enphasis on separteness. Whatever it was neverthless had tremendous effects, isn'it.
By the way, today is a fresh sunny day here. Best.