One year after the termination of tenured professors at Cedarville University, current President Bill Brown, Vice President Bob Milliman, Dr. Chris Miller and the Board of Trustees have been named for their key roles in a lawsuit which carries massive allegations, especially for a Christian University. The complaint, filed July 3, 2008, is not a complaint based on small gripes or mere emotion. The complaint alleges serious illegal activities: breach of contract, fraud, and defamation. The complaint is incredibly easy to read and is self-explanatory due to its detailed nature; please take two minutes and read it.

In addition, this late 2007, a group of senior faculty and retired staff who hold over 500+ years of combined service at Cedarville University formed the 'Coalition of the Concerned'. The Coalition issued a written statement expressing grave concerns with the school's direction, describing concerns over a drift from its Biblical position on "Truth" (that it can be known with 'certainty') while describing additional concerns resulting from the poor governance by the current administration at Cedarville. It contains a summary of concerns, some of which are now tied to the lawsuit.

This lawsuit has been brought by one of the tenured professors terminated in the summer of 2007, Dr. Hoffeditz. As previously detailed in the articles on this website, the situation at Cedarville escalated when various resignations and terminations occurred in the Bible department during the 06-07 school year. In addition, Cedarville students drafted a letter to the Board of Trustees in late 2006 outlining various theological concerns over content presented to students in chapels and current Bible courses, requesting that the school adopt an official statement regarding Truth (it can be known with 'certainty'). Despite nearly 250 signatures contained within the letter, the authors - three senior Bible majors - were allegedly interrogated for days and threatened with expulsion if written apologies were not drafted immediately. For all the time spent by Vice President Carl Ruby interrogating the students, their concerns were never addressed, only process.

One by one, University employees who believed that one could know Truth as revealed by the Word of God and know it with 'certainty' - not just 'assurance' - were no longer employed by the University. Some resigned in protest while others found that their contracts would not be renewed. However, some Bible professors were on track for tenure and could not be let go without great outcry. After the campus-wide distress over the removal of Dr. Cragoe as Bible Department Chair and Prof. Thigpen in the middle of the 06-07 year, administrators allegedly could not afford to have any more issues on campus as the accrediting board - the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools - would soon be visiting the school in May 2007 to re-accredit the University for the next ten years. To prevent a "campus furor" during the important accreditation process (line 26 of the complaint), the school issued a tenure contract to Dr. Hoffeditz before the accrediting board came to Cedarville, but the contract was tendered in bad faith because the school already had plans to revoke the contract and terminate Dr. Hoffeditz once the accrediting board was gone (line 25 of the complaint, stated by Milliman in a leaked recording). This is fraud in the inducement. The first week of July 2007 - after classes were out and the accrediting board was finished - Dr. Hoffeditz and Dr. Mappes were terminated from their tenured positions. This is a breach of the tenure contract. The University assured the public that the the terminated professors were being taken care of, but Line 22 of the complaint doesn't appear too caring. Instead of filing a public lawsuit for fraud and breach of contract, Dr. Hoffeditz filed an internal complaint before the Grievance Investigation Panel at Cedarville University, requesting his reinstatement. He patiently waited seven months before the panel of faculty peers came to a decision. They ruled in his favor.

Dr. Hoffeditz spent over half a year trying to resolve the matter internally, and in February 2008, the Grievance Investigation Panel ruled that he should be reinstated - even though the administration tried to manipulate the process (line 21 of the complaint). The Grievance Panel recommended his reinstatement but days later, the administration simply overturned this recommendation. By this point, every attempt at resolution had been made and thereby Matthew 18:17 had been reached ("...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector"). As a result, the alleged illegal activities of the University's leadership now will be brought before a jury in a Court of Law. ANY valid lawsuit alleging fraud, defamation and breach of contract is a lawsuit focused on a series of highly illegal activities that cannot go unanswered. Since the complaint alleges such serious illegal activity, it was gracious of Dr. Hoffeditz to attempt internal resolution instead of immediately pursuing the matter in Court. It is unfortunate that he must exhaust his final option, but justice now requires it and the matter is now public.

During the second half of 2007, a leaked audio recording of Vice President Milliman was made public on the internet and many individuals obtained a copy. In the audio, Milliman allegedly made many statements found to be upsetting by both many alumni and the general public, statements confirming the aforementioned desire to give Hoffeditz a tenure contract simply to avoid "campus furor," knowing in advanced that it would later be revoked. News of this recording (and the termination of tenured professors) became headline news in local papers and prestigious national journals, such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. Additionally, the AAUP from Washington D.C. launched an investigation into the school out of grave concerns about the situation at Cedarville. Their published report should be available in September 2008. What will happen when the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools - who oversees the accreditation of Cedarville - obtains this report? Furthermore, with threatening attorney letters being sent to alums in possession of the recording, it seems the University seems more concerned with the circulation of this recording than its explosive content. Is Dr. Milliman going to deny his recorded statements before a jury?

The school eventually launched a massive public relations campaign to calm the angst among the Cedarville family. For example, the Board of Trustees, in their last meeting, adopted an "executive summary" to their Truth and Certainty statement. The summary now includes the words "wholly certain" (instead of 'assurance') in the approach to the truth. If this is supposed to address the 'certainty v. assurance' debate, why then does the university continue to employ people who hold to the "less than certainty" ('assurance')? This would appear to be hollow, similar to the many e-mails, public statements, and costly DVD projects that have been assembled to assure the public of no doctrinal drift. Why would the University spend $30,000 in postage alone to distribute 30,000 DVDs if there were not incredibly worried about the school's reputation among alumni? Perhaps it is because spiritually, the fruit listed on the links page, for example, reveals an internal struggle over homosexuality and abortion views at the school. These are merely side effects when a University embraces 'assurance' instead of 'certainty' regarding the Truth of the Word of God. The key theological discussion about these matters can be found within the articles on this site and details the situation at length. Defamation, however, is a legal matter and is also listed in the complaint.

Comforting statements from beloved men and trustee members in a well-packaged DVD may give the impression that the present issues at Cedarville are overblown and that any issues are being dealt with properly. The presence of this lawsuit indicates otherwise and the universal silence regarding the legal problems in this complaint - in DVDs and public statements - is deafening. Sadly, just as blind loyalty allowed the pied piper to lead many down a path of destruction, some still believe that there are no problems at Cedarville. It is always easier deny reality and pretend there are no problems. Some who live in this false reality - whose apathy could be equated with those arranging dinner chairs on the Titanic - would rather publicly paint Hoffeditz as bitter or angry, or even 'sinful' (see line 12 of the complaint). Hoffeditz has been featured by name on the Cedarville website numerous times, and slanderous blogs supporting the administration claim that a lack of his professionalism led to significant division on campus and merited his termination. There is a huge problem with this claim: with these public statements there has been NO PUBLIC EVIDENCE presented to anyone that would support this idea (line 20 of the complaint). Without any proof, such claims are incredibly defamatory and highly destructive. It is unfortunate that President Brown decided to repeat this defamatory claim in Christianity Today - while laughing - after the Grievance Panel's recommendation was overturned (line 15 of the complaint). As such, this lawsuit includes a claim of defamation against the listed parties at Cedarville.

For those who say that Christians cannot sue one another, please read these two passages:

In the case of Matthew 18 our Lord commands that when one has a dispute, a body (a church) acts as the final arbiter at stage three. When the loser fails to abide by the group's decision, he is to be treated "as a pagan or a tax collector." Cedarville's Grievance Panel has some significant parallels with the procedure. Three of the five members of that committee are elected by the faculty at large. This is roughly analogous to the church body at large. For the remaining two members, however, one of the important differences between the two bodies (the church and the Grievance Panel) is that the President is given the choice of the remaining two of the five members who sit on the committee.

The Grievance Panel, in spite of the two individuals who could be presumed to favor the President's point of view, found for Dr. Hoffeditz. At this point if there is no fourth step, the matter should be settled. However, the University's rules give the President the power to accept or reject the findings of the Panel. In this case Dr. Brown did overturn their findings, whereas in a church, the pastor is not given this particular prerogative. If the University rules followed the Lord's words in Matthew 18 and settled the matter with the Grievance Panel's findings, Dr. Hoffeditz would have prevailed and the matter would be settled.

As a result, by the closest Biblical circumstances possible, Dr. Hoffeditz prevails and the President does not; Dr. Hoffeditz has the full essence of the Matthew passage and the institution does not.

Further recourse by opponents to the lawsuit is argued on the grounds that 1 Corinthians 6:8's words "why not rather be wronged" (verses 6 & 7) are a command. Two things cancel out this reading as a command. First, a previous verse (verse 4) lays out the matter of the disposing of the dispute. Second, if this is a command, the Lord's words in Matthew 18 become superfluous and one is left with the less than omniscient God whose instruction would be cancelled out by the personal conclusion of seeing "why not rather be wronged" as a command.

In Matthew 18:17 our Lord says that one should regard the wrongful party as a pagan or a tax collector. It does not say that is no longer a brother, only that he should be treated as a pagan or tax collector. Pagans can be sued, wrongdoing pagans who do a significant wrong ought to be sued. Ergo, a case for an appeal before a secular court would be Paul's appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11), so Christians do show up in court when dealing with pagans.