The University of Divinity is an Australian collegiate university of specialisation in divinity. It is constituted by eleven theological colleges from eight denominations. The University of Divinity is the direct successor of the second oldest degree-granting authority in the State of Victoria, the Melbourne College of Divinity. The university's chancery and administration are located in Kew, a suburb of Melbourne in the state of Victoria.The Melbourne College of Divinity was constituted in 1910 by an act of the Parliament of Victoria. The act was amended in 1956, 1972, 1979, 1990, 2005 and 2016 and is now known as the University of Divinity Act 1910 (previously the Melbourne College of Divinity Act 1910). From its beginnings the college was a self-accrediting issuer of degrees, while not becoming a university until 2011. Representatives appointed by several churches formed the college to provide tertiary level theological education. The first president was the Right Reverend Henry Lowther Clarke, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, and the first registrar was the Reverend John Mathew, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria.In 2010, the Melbourne College of Divinity applied to the Victorian Regulation and Qualifications Authority for approval to operate as a self-accrediting "Australian University of Specialisation" (a category of higher education provider). The Victorian government announced on 30 August 2011 that the application had been approved and on 1 January 2012 the college began operating as a university. Peter Sherlock was appointed the inaugural vice-chancellor in April 2012. In May 2019 TEQSA extended the seven-year licence to operate as a university for an additional three years to the maximum possible of ten years before a review.In the 2019 Student Experience Survey, the University of Divinity recorded the highest student satisfaction rating out of every Australian university, with an overall satisfaction rating of 92.8.
The classic definitions of God and Trinity involving the concept of personhood are grounded in the lexical fields of ancient theological and philosophical discourse. They raise the question of the extent to which a believer is required to enter into those worldviews and conceptualities. If a semantic approach is adopted, it becomes apparent that a term like “person” may be re-accentuated according to context. This is an approach which is itself found within patristic methodology, not least in the transitions from Hellenistic philosophy to Greek Christian theology, and then from Greek to Latin. With this method in place, readers may approach such terms using materials derived from their own culture and context, not just those of antiquity. The Kiswahili proverb, Mtu ni watu (a person is people), provides an example of such a term, used to define personhood. Its adoption means that African Christians may approach a core doctrine of the Christian faith easily from their own cultural perspective without requiring a grounding in European thought and history, using a methodology already adopted by their Christian ancestor, Augustine of Hippo.
This paper examines the relationship between Aleksei Losev’s ontology of symbol and Sergei Bulgakov’s sacramental theology as a “bridge” to eucharistic ecclesiology. It proposes that Losev’s account of symbol, name and myth articulates an ontology in which manifestation entails real participation without collapsing the distinction between what manifests and the manifested. Bulgakov develops an analogous structure with divine-humanity, Sophia and sacramental participation. The eucharist brings these concerns into focus: even as created materiality is the means of communion in Christ, the Church manifests a divine-human reality exceeding its empirical form. The article does not propose intellectual dependence between Losev and Bulgakov; rather, their comparison clarifies the ontological basis upon which Bulgakov’s implicit eucharistic ecclesiology is intelligible, before the principle receives explicit ecclesiological formulation in Nicholas Afanasiev.
In this essay, we argue that lack of attention to circadian health is undermining learning and well-being in business schools. We draw on research in chronobiology to explain how the normalization of sleep deprivation and misaligned circadian rhythms negatively affect not only students' health and well-being but also their learning capacity and work performance. In our call to action, we urge business schools to challenge the institutionalization of poor circadian health as an acceptable aspect of management education and management careers. To this end, we discuss how educating students about circadian principles of management and leadership can help them improve their own well-being and productivity and better lead others through knowledge of how biological rhythms interact with workplace practices. We also critically analyze how current approaches to teaching and learning in business schools can be better aligned with students' circadian predispositions and natural rhythms of learning, working, and living. In doing so, we make a contribution by demonstrating how a circadian perspective can help business schools cultivate healthier and more productive cultures within their institutions and empower students to foster similar environments in their future industries and professions.
The editors first met each other via email in early 2020 [...]
In 1904 and 1905, Sergei Bulgakov and Lev Shestov each concluded, independently, that Anton Chekhov demanded philosophical, not merely literary treatment. Bulgakov named him a myslitel' , a thinker; Shestov, in his own idiom, called him a singer of hopelessness. Bulgakov, still moving through his Idealist period toward his eventual return to the Church, read Chekhov's fiction as registering an oblique, unstated religious hope beneath mundane portraits. Shestov in contrast, moving toward the philosophy of groundlessness that later defined his work, read the same fiction as a sustained, honest demolition of consolation. The present paper compares the two essays' interpretive methods as well as their conclusions. Bulgakov proceeds by patient accumulation, refusing to discount any part of Chekhov's corpus; Shestov proceeds by a method that treats every hope as a concession and every bleak passage as the truth beneath it, a procedure that cannot be tested against the texts it claims to interpret. The paper argues that Bulgakov's slower, cumulative reading answers to a wider breadth of Chekhov's work and does fuller justice to its ethical charge than Shestov's totalising thesis – a judgment on methodology, and not a claim to have settled what Chekhov himself believed.
