This third edition of Cedarville Situation addresses the attempt of the administration to say that they affirm the concept of certainty by their use of "assurance" in their Truth and Certainty Statement. There are several facts that, I think, make that position untenable.
Again I have to say that this all represents one man's opinion in that I do not have the ability to guarantee each informant or source that I have used.
(1) But to the "assurance-as-certainty" view one should note several facts: primarily we have the case of Amy-Hope Guiselman who taught philosophy for six years in the environment of a number who did not believe in certainty. Guiselman is thoroughly trained in philosophy (she is ABD at Ohio State) and she knows the difference between "certainty" and otherwise as that topic is much in view in the Postmodernist present. She wrote a paper in defense of certainty to which David Mills took thorough exception. There is no doubt that their views were quite incompatible. Mills did not offer "assurance" as an equivalent to "certainty." In fact Mills lumps "assurance" with "confidence" under the heading "feeling certain" (Definition of Key Epistemological Terms and Implications for Christian Faith: No.6 Feeling Certain) . But the definition of "feeling certain" includes the explanation that "one can feel certain without being certain."
There is the further fact that Mills' regularly avers that Christians must be satisfied with an epistemology that is "less-than-certainty." In his paper entitled "Certainty vs. Confidence" he opposed the title terms as incompatible.
Again in his critique of Donald Carson he complains that Carson uses the term "certainty" to refer to our knowledge of God. He continues "like it or not our Modern language has linked that word to omniscient, exhaustive, infallible knowledge." This is egregiously false for no authoritative dictionary lists the word in this way. As stated in Cedarvile Situation (Article #1) one can know a thing with certainty without knowing it exhaustively or omnisciently (e.g, consciousness.)
Mills further avers that "God has been pleased to make it possible for humans to gain a real and sufficient knowledge ( but not a certainty) of some of that truth through general and special revelation" (Elaborations and Implications, 4). The phrase "but not a certainty" is crucial for it directly denies the certainty view.
So it is certain that Mills and those faculty who think as he does do not hold to "certainty."
Now comes the rub. President Brown, in the presence of fourteen witnesses, said on December 17th of last year that the word "assurance" in the University's Truth and Certainty statement means the same as "certainty." The exact lines in The Truth and Certainty statement are thus:
"The Christian has the privilege of living with confidence made possible by God's grace. Christians can be assured that their beliefs are warranted even if their understanding is not comprehensive or perfect in every instance. This certainty is to be held with humility and love."
Notice that "assured" is the operative word. "Certainty" follows but it is the certainty of being assured. The attempt to put the word "certainty" in proximity to "assured" is , it seems to me, a remarkable example of grammatical manipulation.
Since Dr. Brown (authoritatively) equates "assured" with being "certain" there is a dramatic problem. Those faculty who signed the statement (the statement is incorporated in the Faculty Handbook which is then incorporated in the faculty contracts) without meaning certainty must face dismissal.
But what has happened is that the "certainty people," Thigpen, Cragoe, Hoffeditz and Mappes have been dismissed. One hears cover stories that these men were failing to keep the Community Covenant (a new document which is so elastic that even a casual remark can become a violation and the document itself appears to be a clear violation of the contracts of imposition principle). But Mills writes that the certainty view is "Luciferan, arrogant, and idolatrous," and he is not dismissed for breaking of the Covenant. This appears to be a horrendous double standard, the essential New Testament definition of sin (Cf. Romans 2:1).
The university uses the "assurance = certainty" formula in response to questions from constituents. The non-dismissal of the "less-than-certainty" faculty and the response to inquirers are egregiously inconsistent. No responsible board member should allow this condition to occur.
The Board cannot continue to retain those of the non-certainty group unless they are deliberately violating their own policy and are involved in a deception of the constituents. This is a somewhat simplistic statement of a very real and significant problem. Added to MacArthur's charge of blasphemy (God consigns men to an everlasting hell but doesn't make the terms certain) is the problem of deception. Ignoring the problem does not solve the problem.
(2) And there are other problems in the operations of the university. Specifically, as stated in the second edition of this site, The Christianity Today surveys of the workplace show a consistent pattern downward of employee satisfaction to the point that Cedarville did not even continue in the survey in 2007.
In summarizing the 2003-2005 results, the school's director of the survey rather revealing stated that " there has been a serious and sustained decline in employee satisfaction at Cedarville University for the last three years. This decline should receive priority attention from the managers and supervisors on campus.
(3) To address what it sees as matters of concern in doctrine and governance, a Coalition of the Concerned has rather spontaneously arisen. The individuals in the group (14 in number) represent over 500 years of service to Cedarville. It includes Harold Green, Jack Riggs, Don Callan, Merlin Ager, (the last three were the first deans of their respective schools), Sandi Entner, Ron and Dick Walker, Ed Spencer, Rich Blumenstock, Jim Bjornstad , Dwayne Frank, Elvin King, and Bob Abbas with others asking to join. The group voiced some of their concerns in an open letter sent to faculty and trustees. The administrative response was quick and, some might say, ‘heavy handed." The President characterized the motivation of the group as "less than noble." Curiously (though not unexpectedly) the President cited no evidence for his claim. Simply asserting seems to establish validity. In a previous Presidential letter to the trustees which attempted to answer the first screen of Cedarvillesituation.com, the President without either my knowledge or permission enclosed an e-mail from Chris Miller to me in which no evidence was brought forward but simply the assertion that since he (Chris) was closer to the case than I, his superior knowledge negated my statements (all of which were backed by evidence). Again there was no objective evidence and the President's assertion that I had "seriously mischaracterized David Mills" was merely assertion. In fact, an assertion of an assertion was the totality of his "refutation."
(4) Some who are looking to Cedarville for their children's education might wonder what can be done until these matters are dealt with. A solution I have recommended in the past for families of limited means might work here, both to save money and keep their child away from views (uncertainty) that could fracture their faith. As do almost other schools, Cedarville accepts credits obtained through the CLEP program (CLEP stands for the College Level Examination Program which is a series of tests produced by The College Board). Thus you can take a written test, in say, American history, and, if successfully passed, receive three hours credit towards a degree program. Each test now costs $110, compared to the present Cedarville tuition for the same credits which cost $1,845. Taking 11 of such tests is the equivalent of one year of an undergraduate program. Thus one has substantial tuition savings, plus room and board savings, (plus the conscripted work around the house of son or daughter), and the avoidance of the fractured-faith syndrome (sometimes termed by detractors as the Mills Malignancy). One does have to be accepted at Cedarville before one takes any of these tests. The effect further would significantly reduce the cost of Cedarville, making it more affordable to those who now cannot consider it because of cost, and would make room for more students in that the last three years would have more openings for students. Thus it could ultimately have the effect of creating a third more graduates each year.
(5) Lastly the case of Dr. Hoffeditz gives a picture of how things are operating at Cedarville. Hoffeditz is a second -generation Cedarville graduate, as is his wife, Lori. He did his doctoral studies at the University of Tuebingen in Germany, and the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. He is well published and has been sought by several prestigious evangelical schools. He was tenured and commended by both administrative and colleagues. Suddenly, and without warning he was terminated last July. Here is his account in part of the grievance process:
"Despite that I was never able to view any evidence for the charges being leveled at me, denied the opportunity to listen to my accusers, or cross- examine them, and the Administration was permitted to submit accusation leveled at me by nameless witnesses, the Lord has allowed truth to be seen." (see: http://dmhoffeditz.netfast.org)
Hoffeditz prevailed by a committee of his peers. The panel wrote a report which included nineteen points, eighteen of which were anti-administrative. It was a resounding victory for right.
Any fair-minded person might say that the committee's rules constitute a mockery of fair play. Indeed the canons of common legal practice were ignored. Even the Peacemakers' recognition of these canons was ignored. Now word has come that the Administration has required the Grievance Committee hand over the transcript of its proceedings in direct violation of the Administration imposed rules. Some view this as one of the most reprehensible acts in the history of the school.
The Hoffeditz case has some parallels with the case of Tom Cragoe, who was terminated after the department had unanimously elected him to be chairman. He was terminated by reason of failing for tenure for which he had been fulsomely recommended by departmental members and the Dean of his school. He was read an eight-page letter by the AVP, and summarily terminated without receiving a copy of the termination letter than would have enabled him to reply. Thus Cedarville lost a platinum person and has retained an AVP that many regard as a person of modest abilities and poorer judgment.
Let us hope the trustees awake before they crash the school into an irrevocable disaster. The storm is mounting and is not going away unless action is quickly taken. The trustees have had several mailings and cannot hold that they no warning. Let us pray that responsibility reigns.