The Rev. Kevin Northover. (0441793)
VALE rector the Rev. Kevin Northover would consider quitting the church if he were made to answer to a female bishop. He said he was a traditionalist and would not be able to accept women in the role of authority.
The Church of England general synod last week voted in favour of consecrating women and against safeguards demanded by traditionalists opposed to the move at the gathering in York.
Mr Northover said he was disappointed that no provisions had been made for members of the church who could not accept the decision. ‘I’m not in favour of women bishops,’ he said.
‘But the church has made its decision and I’m sorry that they haven’t made any provisions for people who could not accept women bishops. I quite understand why they have done it, but some people find it difficult to accept. For instance, if the position of Bishop of Winchester were to be held by a woman, I would not be able to ask to move. I would have to seriously consider my position.’
The decision not to allow any provisions for those opposed to the move could split the church.
But any measure introduced in the UK would not automatically transfer to Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man. It would have to be voted on locally and then the local deanery would apply, if approved, to have the measure here.
Dean of Guernsey the Very Rev. Canon Paul Mellor said it would be a long process to have the measure applied locally.
‘We would first have to have consultations within the deanery, then it would be officially discussed at the deanery synod, which meets three or four times a year,’ he said.
If the deanery synod, which includes all clergy and two or three representatives from each parish, agreed, it would approach the Legislative Select Committee of the States and the Law Officers.
‘It would have to go to the floor of the States for approval,’ he said.
‘When that process was completed we would have to make a petition to the national general synod through the Bishop of Winchester to have the legislation applied in Guernsey. If the synod agreed, it would then have to go to the Queen in Privy Council for approval before the measure could be applied here. It’s quite a procedure.’
Canon Mellor said the measure to consecrate women as bishops would probably not be enacted in the UK until 2014 so it is not an issue that will be resolved any time soon.
‘It’s not like it’s going to happen the day after tomorrow,’ he said. ‘But when it does we would discuss whether we wanted it to be applied here, like we do all measures.’
Loading ...
36 Article Comments
Perhaps he should now resign if he is unable to accept changes. Inequality has been ignored far too long, and for a church member to be arguing against change is rather suprising to say the least. Good luck to the females able to take on the challenge.
Rev Northover, get into the 21st Century.
I find your comments totally offensive.
Are you saying that woman are second class citizens?
I pity your poor wife, (if you have one).
I am deeply offended by his comments. How does he know that God isn’t a woman ? Imagine if all of us women turned around and said “I find it difficult to take orders from a man !”
Codswollop !
I am not a religious man, and never have been, but I think the rev northover should retire anyway, because what he is saying is sexist to the extreme, the church says to love thy neighbour, and that all men are equal. well we are now in the twenty first century, and every body is equal, men and women, and if the rev’ doesn’t like that idea, then I have one only one word for him, “GOODBYE!”
I just wonder how many Press readers have already noticed the similarity between Mr Northover and Dr Evil from the Austin Powers films?! Signed the clear-sighted one!
If I were one of Rev. Northover’s parishioners, I think I would be rather pleased if he left. Who wants a reactionary misogynist like him running a parish? He could always try the catholic church if he doesn’t fancy anglicanism anymore - they really dislike women there so he’d probably feel completely at home.
Not so long ago it was OK to burn little old ladies for being witches - in the name of a Christian God. Maybe, as a “traditionalist” Rev. Northover thinks that is still acceptable?
What is acceptable within any religion is endlessly being re-interpreted and changed to fit in with the moral climate of the time. The consecration of women seems to me to be just another manifestation of this process.
Personally, I think that evolutionary theory pretty well knocked the idea of a God on the head anyway. The whole argument about whether or not women should be consecrated is a bit like watching people driving to the recycling banks in their gas-guzzling 4 x 4s - well meaning but utterly pointless.
This man is a misogonist of the highest order - and he call himself a man of God. Bring on women Bishops - they will bring common sense back into religion.
The female clergy we have over here are doing a fantastic job and I remember their ordination at the time was debated at length.
It is time the church was dragged into the 21st century and has nothing to do with ‘taking orders from a woman’. Surely they are working for God - not individuals!
At least Rev Northover has the balls to stand up for what HE thinks correct and what HE understands his theology to mean. There are too many “right on totally PC” people who roll over without any sort of backbone to stand up for what they believe is right.
Kay, please tell me where in the Bible it says that women cannot express the word of God. There are no lines for interpretation. Let’s get the ‘fairer sex’ up where they belong, eh?
The Bible is absolutely crammed with the thoughts of men (speaking for God of course)where women are expected to be totally subjected to the whims of men….whether that be by slavery in the home, or rape and torture and death at the hands of men. The Rev. Kev is, I suppose, simply reflecting the horrors of that biblical teaching. It is not really a case of getting rid of Rev. Northover, it is a case of ridding society of the absolute ignorance and superstition that is organised religion.
What I find amusing is supporters saying “what’s wrong with being un’PC’?”
Since when has being a mysoginist been acceptable in society? Oh yeah, when it’s governed by men, for men, with rules laid down by men in an old book written about men.
Men know very little about God. That’s why we have wars. God worshipping should not be the blueprint for society, but a means of self exploration. Only through ignorance do we get to statements like Rev Northover’s. Really, what has gender got to do with anything?
My point, which I have obviously not made clear is not particularly about religion or misogyny actually - it is about free speech - something that as a society we are not no longer permitted to enjoy it seems. Why cannot anyone say what they want, without being castigated? Are women really that insecure that they will be disappointed or upset by such comments? If Rev Northover dosen’t want to be lead by female bishops - shouldn’t he have the right to say that? If a registrar dosen’t agree with performing same sex “marriage” services for example is he/she wrong for saying that? If I choose NOT to be examined by a female doctor does that make me, as a woman, a misogynist? If I choose not to allow my children to worship Allah in a mixed faith school - does that make me racist? No, of course not - but I should be have the free will to choose what I do or do not want - without the fear (and fear is rift at the moment, believe you me where I live anyway) of being caught up with the, (sorry to use the term if it offends anyone) PC Brigade.
Personal Disclaimer - I reserve the right to say what I want, where I want, about what I want at anytime I want.
Of course anyone can say what they want - providing it’s not libellous or otherwise illegal.
The difference is that the good Rev. Northover and his ilk within the church are not ‘just saying’ that they don’t like the idea of women bishops - they are actively striving to stop women becoming bishops. In our ‘free society’, that is clearly discriminatory!
If it wasn’t for the ‘PC brigade’ women would still not have the vote. Or indeed any of the ‘freedoms’ that an open, democratic country should strive for. Free speech is an interesting concept but is really indefinable, and is a function of the society that defines it’s own ‘freedoms’. In a world where race and gender can determine your future, isn’t it right that we have agitators to iron out the traditionallist kinks, as the globe shrinks and lines of communication broaden, where our everyday consumables are made by children in sweatshops; people in power should not advertise their prejudice and we should actively discourage any societal division caused by outmoded thinking.
Women should not be treated as people ‘that I won’t work for’. Just insert the word ‘jew’ next time you’re thinking about free speech.
Wasn’t it lucky for him that he was born a male!
What a pity it wasn’t a hundred years earlier, as he is clearly behind the times!
Why shouldn’t Rev Northover decide he can’t (under his own ecclesiastical thinking) work under/for a woman? Because it is unlawful? He is only saying aloud what a lot of people think privately but are too scared to voice. Do we really feel that insecure that his words or actions worry us that much? Our freedoms are indeed hard won, but as a woman who has broken through the so called glass ceiling in business - women need to get over their own prejudices and get on with work - stop bleating.
I don’t believe that the issue is about ‘free speech’. Whilst ‘Kev the Rev’ should not be vilified for airing his thoughts he has shown where his allegiance is - back in the dark ages. The crux of the matter is that there is a difference between free speech and freedom of choice. If the Rev Northover has his way there will not be any choice - women will never have the opportunity to be bishops. I also have some sympathy with Vic Gambles post - religion is at the root of many of the worlds current and past disasters. Would the world be a better place without religion……or would complete anarchy reign?
You would think that he would encourage the message of God? Does it really make a difference if the messenger is male or female?
Actively trying to take peoples attention away from Gods message and instead getting people to focus on whats between peoples legs sounds like work of the devil to me. Just another example of a rev obsessed with sex.
To Kay Worthington. Of course Rev. Northover has the right to free speech. He has just exercised it. The repondents have also exercised their own right to free speech to comment on his mcp viewpoint.
You can say white is black but expect to be challenged on it.
Interesting point is that the head of the Church of England is a woman, and has been since 1952!!
Shocked!
Reverend Northover is entitled to his own opinions , but he really needs to keep opinions like these to himself, as they are offensive to a vast number of his parishioners.
He knew when taking on the position he did so as a representative of the Church of England in Vale, that his voice needed to be used to benefit his parishioners.
How can voicing this outdated and downright offensive opinion be a benefit to anyone!
If he can’t work for a woman,fine. Give him his P45!
I believe in free speach - and the Rev is as entitled as anyone else to air his personal views. However, I think he should make a clear distinction between his personal views - and his responsibilities as a reverend. Surely as a ‘man of God’ he should be exploiting his opportunity to speak to the press to encourage tolerance and acceptance rather than the opposite? Priests, reverends, rabbis and religious leaders of all creeds are surely supposed to be striving towards greater harmony for their respective flocks, rather than contributing to the divisions? Setting an example that we should all be striving for? As an individual, free speach is his right. But as a reverend, he’s just failed in his responsibility as a religious leader, and if I were a member of his flock I’d be deeply disappointed.
Kay - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
No-one disputes the right to say what you think, freedom of speech and all that, however when you are in a position in the public eye such as the Reverend then I think you must choose your words very carefully. Not because we women are bleating and insecure as you say, but simply that its a case of respect and diplomacy - something that this dear reverend doesn’t seem to have.
I agree with Vic though - most of the troubles in this sad world are related to religion.
What a very good point Stephen! How do the clergy who are against women taking on senior roles in the church get around the fact that the Queen is the head of the Church of England?
After all, it was because of Anne Boleyn that the CofE was created. Surely we should be honouring women for our religious independence from Rome?
Best keep schtum then, and risk being branded hypocritical eh?
The saddening thing is that when people are pharisaic they think about themselves first and make a great noise when something doesn’t please them. Synod IS making it possible for people such as Mr Northover to continue in his ministry. The female priests we have on Guernsey are doing wonderful things…and believe they have been called to do so without a stipend! Like true Christians, they are making God’s love manifest. That is the most important thing.
Just have to make a comment on Eliza’a view (15/7)regarding the Catholic Church and ‘dislike of women’. I am saddened that this is the impression - but can undertand where it may come from. It is true there are no ordained female ‘priests’ in the Church, this practice is based on an interpretation of Christs choice as detailed in the bible and adhered to for the past 2000 years. I am no scholar, but I suspect that the various reasons/explanations given by the Church over the millenium has been questionable at times and linked to some of it’s historical failings - eg the ‘power’ of ordained clergy etc. and, in the context of the time, would certainly have seen women as ’second class’. Much discussion and debate has focued on these roles. I imagine the day will come when this will change (and many in the Catholic Church would welcome this - in my youth women couldn’t take any ministerial part, but that has long changed!) but I pray that, unlike the increasing division and confusion which has been a feature since the Reformation (and I note Stephens comment), that decision will be through more gentle evolution and prayer rather than revolution. An organisation the size and age of the Catholic Church can be slow at change - but let’s not forget how in secular matters, female emancipation only came about relatively recently locally.
But, returning to the point - anyone who really knows the Catholic Church will know that no-one is held as a second class citizen and ‘disliked’. I don’t know the figures, but from observation I would guess that, locally, Sunday congregations of 600 - 700 (may be more) are made up of higher percentages of women than men - why if they were so ‘disliked’? Is anyone suggesting they are all following blindly like ’sheep’…..I hope not, that would be insulting to the present generation!
Finally, I agree with many of the earlier comments - if/when the day comes that the Catholic church makes this move, once that decision is taken I would hope our ‘clergy’ would have the humility to accept it, or step down, and not place their own values above that of the organisation they represent.
“I agree with Vic though - most of the troubles in this sad world are related to religion.”
Oh, I don’t know…The Russian revolution, how many died? Stalin, millions dead; Hitler, millions dead; Pol Pot, millions dead; Maoist purges, millions dead; Rwandan genocide, South African apartheid, Darfur, Zimbabwe, the list goes on…not much religion there…
Of course, religion has been the cause of much bloodshed - they killed Jesus, didn’t they?
Merlin & Stephen both make very valid points….but the old disease of flunkeyism/lackeyism raises its ugly head once you introduce the Royal Family into the equation….vicars like the Rev Kev may not fear the scorn of common women, but I bet he’d think twice before offending Her Majesty.
Greg, I appreciate your point and I’m sure you personally, like most catholics in the liberal west don’t dislike women (I speak as an ex-catholic so I know a few), but it seems to me that a church which does not ordain women, does not allow its priests to marry, reveres a biologically impossible virgin mother while marginalizing real women to the absolute edges of power and officially recognizes womens’ only useful role as passive members of a congregation is symptomatic of a deep, pathological and institutionalized dislike of women.
The recent announcement by the Vatican that moves by the Church of England to ordain women bishops will create a strong impediment to further unity between the two churches makes it seem unlikely that women will be ordained into the catholic priesthood in our lifetimes. How long are you prepared to wait? Maybe liberal catholics should consider converting to anglicanism, or alternatively join us atheists where these problems just don’t arise.
Ben lists items of historical facts that he considers unrelated to religion…without going through each and every one I think he will find that Hitler was a religious nutter of the highest degree and that the Apartheid government of South Africa were able to continue their anti-black stance because of biblical interpreations that convinced the whites (and specifically the Dutch Reformed Church members) that whites were superior to blacks in the eyes of God.
There is no profit in quoting violent actions of men where religion is not apparently involved and then conculding that religion is somehow off the hook…..
To each their own.
To each their own, what….? A truncated sentence such as this is pure jibberish.