How about this one? This is a response from the national Episcopal Church after my e-mail about a pagan "eucharst" on its website. I find it interesting that they are primarily concerned with apologizing for copyright violation, rather than my issue of why is a pagan ceremony on a Christian church's website:
Dear Mr. Hignite,
We appreciate you contacting us with your concerns. The following is our official response to "A Women's Eucharist" and the weblog on Christianity Today regarding this resource:
Office of Women's Ministries Official Response to Christianity Today's "Weblog: Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship"
We have been astounded and grateful for the number of people who have taken an interest in The Office of Women's Ministries of the Episcopal Church through Christianity Today's recent weblog, "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," as posted by Ted Olsen on October 26, 2004.
The material questioned in Olsen's article, "A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine" was sent to us in good faith in response to our recent call for resources. We regret we did not realize that the material was copyright protected. Proper notifications were not included by mistake and so the page has been withdrawn from our website.
We profoundly regret that Christianity Today did not contact us before making claims such as, "...leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities." The resources listed on our website are not approved liturgies of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people's interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church. Only General Convention has this authority.
The current liturgy project - A Call for Resources: The Women's Liturgy Project - and the Women's Worship Resources section on our website is a grassroots, organic, interactive process. It is an offering to open the awareness of the many voices and needs that exist among people in the church as we all strive to find expressions of our life, love and faith in God.
From: Mike Hignite [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:36 PM
To: Womens Ministries
Subject: What are you promoting here?
I checked out this resource for women of the Episcopal Church:
Why are you promoting idolatry in the name of Christianity? It is undeniable that women have contributed greatly to the life of the Body of Christ. Scripture is full of faithful women loving and serving God. Our tradition is full of the powerful witness of women over centuries. The good work and witness of the UTO was begun by women. How dare you attempt to denigrate their service and faithfulness by offering this abomination as having anything to do with Jesus Christ! I somehow doubt that Sarah, Ruth, Esther, Martha, or Mary would thank you for this offering.
I ask your forgiveness on behalf of men everywhere for any way we have, through thought, word or action, led you to feel that God doesn't love and value women just as much as He loves and values men. But let's not stupidly promote idolatry in some misguided effort to "balance out" a feminine "Eucharist". Our God is too far beyond this.
We have a common Eucharist to remind us that all baptized persons belong to Christ, are saved by Christ, and have a place with Him. Any special Eucharist exclusively for one group, one sex, one race, or one occupation denies this oneness.
Diocese of Michigan
Mike, surely you are aware by now (hopefully anyway) that there NEVER WAS any copyright issue here, because the original author of the druid rite, and the person who submitted it to the OWM are the SAME PERSON: a Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk, rector of St. Francis in the Fields (ECUSA), Malvern Pa.
At least Mike got a response from ECUSA - I sent an email and all I got was a form letter saying they had received my response and would get back to me. I guess they were too overwhelmed with comments to get back to me.
I received a real email response from Rose, in which she apologized--albeit defensively. But I emailed the very same day, and I bet you're right they were overwhelmed.