James Holsinger's Recusal

I have watched the Judicial Council for many years.

Back in 1993, something happened that I did not know could happen. Rev. Zan Holmes recused himself from consideration of the case of a Perkins School of Theology professor who was a member of the annual conference to which Dr. Holmes belonged. See Judicial Council Decision (JCD) 696.

For years, a key member of the Judicial Council had given in writing, by phone, and in personal conversation ex parte opinions to bishops in cases that were headed for the Judicial Council. That kind of "help" by a Judicial Council member was finally ended by General Conference in 1992. See Paragraph 2607 of the 2004 Book of Discipline.

Dr. Holmes' recusal set a precedent of integrity that was honored by a number of other Judicial Council members when cases came from their respective annual conferences. For instance, a recent case caused the secretary of the Judicial Council to remove himself from any action related to a case during his annual conference so he would be free to fulfill his role as a Judicial Council member. He spelled out his actions in his concurring opinion, last paragraph, of JCD 1032.

One might think that maybe Dr. Holsinger, president of the Judicial Council, is showing a similar ethical concern by withdrawing from the Fall Session of the Judicial Council held last week. Unfortunately, I cannot believe that is so.

In the past, during his seven years on the Council, Dr. Holsinger did not recuse himself from at least two cases before the Judicial Council in which he had significant relationships with parties at interest. Now he recused himself from a session in which there were some cases dealing with controversial matters. No matter how he would vote on them, it would not affect his integrity but it could affect his chance to become Surgeon General.

The issue of his ethical practice recently has become a public matter through reports about his role involving the disbursal of proceeds from the sale of an annual conference property. Some of those proceeds were donated to programs at the university where he worked. When that story came out a few weeks ago, in my opinion, Dr. Holsinger should have resigned from the Judicial Council then. But if he had, how would that look going into the Senate confirmation hearings? If he is confirmed by the Senate, then he can resign from the Judicial Council for a positive reason.

It is time for Dr. Holsinger to face his past unfortunate decisions and actions and the serious questions they have raised. He can show the same integrity as his predecessors by resigning now from the Judicial Council, not simply recusing himself for this session because his nomination may be an "unnecessary and unproductive distraction."


--This post is also published as a commentary on UM NeXus, http://www.umnexus.org--