Bogdan Lubardic

In its current phase (2009–...) of work the commission (ICAOTD) has been studying, first, theological anthropology: that is, what is the Christian understanding of the nature of the human person in relation to God, and, second, in the light of this, what this means for how human beings live. The new document Stewards of Creation: A hope-filled ecology (London: ACC, 2020), 76 pp explores the proper place of human beings within creation and the responsibility that human beings have to care for God’s creation.

The International Commission for Anglican–Orthodox Theological Dialogue (ICAOTD) began its fourth phase in 2009, under the co-chairmanship of Archbishop Roger Herft of Perth and Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia. In September 2015 the Commission completed this, its first Agreed Statement, In the Image and Likeness of God: A Hope-Filled Anthropology (London: ACC), 89 pp. The product of six years of study and dialogue, the text celebrates what Anglicans and Orthodox can say together about the human person, created in ‘the Image and Likeness of God’.

This book presents the first comprehensive account of the changing ecumenical relationships between Britain and Serbia. While the impetus for the collection is the commemoration of the Serbian seminarians who settled in and around Oxford towards the end of the First World War, the scope is much broader, including detailed accounts of the relationships between the Church of England and Serbia and its Orthodox Church from the middle of the nineteenth century until World War II. It includes studies of leading thinkers from the period, especially the charismatic Nikolaj Velimirović. The contributors use many unpublished resources that reveal the centrality of the churches in promoting the Serbian cause through the course of the First World War and in its aftermath.

In order to mark 125 years from Justin Popović’s birth and 40 years from his repose the Centre for Byzantine-Slavic Studies of the University of Niš, the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade and the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory of the University of Belgrade venture to organize the international conference “Thought and Mission of St Justin Popović”, in Belgrade from 10th till 11th May 2019. As a monk, cleric and saint of the Orthodox Church, as a professor of the University of Belgrade and as cofounder of the Serbian Philosophical Society, Justin Popović (1894–1979) is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century. Despite unanimous recognition of Justin Popović’s undeniably great intellectual and spiritual achievements, certain dimensions and aspects of his work remain either unobserved or represent an occasion for varying interpretations. The aim of the conference is to highlight the dimensions and aspects of Justin Popović’s work which have not been sufficiently explored or remain subject to divergent – sometimes conflicting –  interpretations, and to dialogically evaluate the contribution of his thought not only to Orthodoxy, but to Christian theology and spirituality in general. In this sense, the conference is a forum for responsible critical consideration and formulation of new scientific-methodological approaches, and for more subtle interpretations of Justin Popović’s legacy: particularly in regard to his critique of humanism and non-Orthodox Christian denominations. As well, the conference strives to find ways to carefully distinguish between Justin Popović’s authentic spirituality and philosophical-theological thought and its reduction, instrumentalization and ideologization within frameworks of non-critically affirmed politics of power, cultural or of other kind. Not least, the conference represents an collective embodiment of collegial good will to support and to nurture the legacy of Fr Justin as Saint, Theologian, Philosopher, Culture critics, and as a remarkable witness of Christ the Godman — addressing all ends of the world.

The contributing autors of this collection of study essays look at a period of closeness between Anglicans and the Serbian Orthodox: The Kingdom of Serbia – a vulnerable Orthodox country in Eastern Europe is attacked by a large expansionist neighbour. Consequently, much of the population flee abroad. British public opinion mobilises enthusiastically behind the embattled country and its refugees. The Archbishop of Canterbury places himself at the forefront in offering gestures of solidarity to its faith leaders.

“... these two books open a new chapter in the research of Justin Popović’s legacy, in contrast to revival-apologetic and descriptive approach that previously dominated the reception of Justin Popović’s thoughts. This new approach is characterized by a non-ideological approach to Justin’s work and balances between two extremes, in a certain sense it proposes a middle path. The first extreme, pietistic and defensive panegyric, considers any criticism of Justin’s work to be a direct attack on his holiness. The second extreme finds in Justin’s work a justification to reject the Serbian Church and all Orthodoxy due to their anti-modern and retrograde nature. Both extremes had fed each other for years and insist on the objectivity and complete truthfulness of their own interpretation of Justin’s work. Te proposed middle ground no longer has as the starting point of whether Justin’s views are correct or not, but it considers the reasons and circumstances in which Justin’s work occurs. The conference proceedings of justinological studies Studia Iustiniana Serbica Collationes brings extended and redacted papers presented at the conference Mission and thought of St Justin Popović organized in Belgrade on May 10 and 11, 2019 by the Institute of Philosophy and Social Theory (Belgrade), by the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade and by the Center for Byzantine-Slavic Studies at the University of Niš. This conference was a scientific forum for the formulation of new scientific-methodological approaches....” (Dr Zdenko Š. Širka, Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University, Prague)

“The books of Bogdan Lubardić from the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade are famous for their careful and precise elaboration and this is also the case with his latest book Justin of Ćelije and England: Ways of Reception of British Theology, Literature and Science. There we can find a clearly described and then consistently followed methodology, cautious conclusions, detailed research, clear and comprehensible structure, consistent argumentation, precise expressions, objective evaluation of the analysed topics and reasoning of individual statements. Still, the author’s vocabulary is not sterile, quite the contrary, reading this book can be compared to reading a detective story, where you consume word after word, just to find out what it was really like with Justin Popović in England.” (Dr Zdenko Š. Širka, Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University, Prague)

У овом раду аутор презентује теолошке и историјско‑црквене претпоставке формирања битне званичне структуре за екуменски оријентисан дијалог Англиканске Цркве и Православне Цркве, и то у виду Међународне Комисије за англиканско‑православни теолошки дијалог (International Commission for Anglican‑Orthodox Theological Dialogue = ICAOTD 1973–2018). У раду се излажу основне фазе историјског рада Комисије. Посебна критичка пажња је усмерена на главне теолошке задатке и циљеве, као и на горућа питања, укључујући проблеме и кризе са којима се Комисија у свом систематично постављеном и доследно оствариваном раду до сада сусретала. Теолошки и екуменски пут Комисије контекстуализован је како с обзиром на претходећу историју англиканско‑православних односа, тако и на савремена историјска збивања унутар обе Цркве респективно. Главну теолошку подлогу рефлексија о раду Комисије представљају њене званичне договорене изјаве (agreed statеments). Ти документи представљају плод низа значајних пленарних скупова Комисије на којима су главна питања и проблеми методично и пажљиво разматрани кроз расправе.

The author presents the main reasons why euthanasia is not acceptable according to the standpoint of the Orthodox Church, including other traditional Christian communities. Consequently, this holds as well with regard to the legalization of euthanasia as a possible social practice. Following the analytical determination of basic concepts and distinctions, including the exposition of the main problem around the burning question of having a right to assisted self-termination of life (assisted suicide), the author lays out the main presuppositions of the Church on the basis of which the arguments in favour of justifying euthanasia are criticized and rejected. After the demarcation of “red lines” concerning the question of euthanasia (voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary), the author explains in which cases (and why) the members of the Church may apply the rule of economical condescension (oikonomia) on the basis of informed compassion: especially in connection with so called voluntary passive euthanasia. In what follows he undertakes the critique of the main presuppositions of the pro-euthanasia movement, including the problematization of the main philosophical, social-cultural, political-economical and legal-moral beliefs of the supporters of euthanasia. Upholding the teaching of the Church regarding the constitutive relational (non-closed and non self-sufficient) character of the subject or person, as well as the standpoint that a good earthly life (albeit important in itself) receives the fullness of meaning only when transcendence is integrated into it, the author displays the reasons why the Church, when facing the promoters of euthanasia, insists on two binding messages: on the one hand, on the revealed truth of faith that life is a gift from God and thus the necessary presupposition of the affirmation of eternal life with Christ in God (and, consequently, that the life of a person is irretractable and holy); on the other hand, on comprehending suffering from the perspective of a voluntary embracement of the Cross as the constitutive element of the process of spiritual growth, and as a necessary pledge in favour of victory over sin as the primordial cause of death: according to the model precisely of Christ’s overcoming of death through the Cross, the result of which is resurrection. This does not entail an algophilic apology of suffering and pain in themselves, nor the affirmation of the seeming absurdities of tormenting afflictions. On the contrary: as is demonstrated by the engagement of trained spiritual counsellors, clergy and the faithful of the Church in the pastoral and palliative domains, with significant convergence with the work of responsible representatives of the medical-physician and psychiatric-psychotherapeutic professions, and with the activities of other relevant carriers of scientific and professional knowledge dedicated to healing, or relieving, more or less advanced diseases with anticipated mortal outcomes.
Кеy words: еuthanasia, Church, relational personhood, suffering, meaning

This paper offers a critical overview of the theology of personhood which has become one of the distinctive features of Orthodox theology in the 20th Century. A systematized synthesis of traits and elements within this movement is offered, thus rectifying a certain lack of it in current literature. On the one hand it is shown that this theology springs forth from the neo-patristic ‘turn’ of Orthodox theology. On the other hand it is demonstrated how theoretical instances of this ‘turn’ bear upon, and appear within the model of the conception of personhood: in its Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological and anthropological dimensions. It is this model of personhood, in its basic elements and connections, which is at work in the ongoing debate on the human person in the Orthodox Church. The model of personhood and the model of eucharistic, i.e. ecclesial self-understanding of the Church are shown to implicate each other intrinsically. This theology is put into perspective in terms of overviewing its development and transmission between four notable exponents: Lossky, Yannaras, Zizioulas and Horuzhy. The model of personhood in particular is shown to be re-received and specifically reworked by each, not without sparks of mutual critique. Still, the general tendency is to make the conception of personhood more ecclesially and anthropologically relevant. Critical consequences of this of theological thought are not to be understood narrowly. For they ramify to bear upon epistemology, ontology, philosophy, theology proper and social ethics. Apart from fruitful solutions to the questions raised by thematizing the challenge of personhood (as immanent to our being image-bearers of God), entry points for critical problematization of this current of Orthodox thinking are displayed. Hence critical consequences of the theology of personhood are not articulated without reference to the meta-critique of it, as offered by a third generation of Orthodox theologians. I propose to view this process in general as a birth of a ‘theological age’ of sorts: the nascent of ecclesial understanding of our personhood in God.

Abstract: This study demonstrates how and with what aim philosophy is received into the missionary activities of the apostles Paul and Luke as regards the Areopagitica in Acts 17. By an ingenious utilization of Greco-Roman learning and paideia, generally, and philosophy, particularly, Lukan Paul offers a context oriented cross-cultural model of preaching the kerygmatic word as of evangelization. A model for the inculturation of the power and meanings of the Gospel message is offered. In
this a significant function is allocated to disciplined mindful reasoning, viz. philosophy. The author demonstrates the special ways in which contact-points are made, and common ground established, between the apostle Paul and Athenian philosophers. This allows him to observe that philosophy is endorsed by the primordial Church: both (a) as a dialectical (critical analytical) and rhetorical (persuasive oratorical) science-skill of addressing significant intellectual others and (b) as a faith-friendly
mode of the Christian’s practice of philosophy. The author infers a number of conclusions regarding the substantial role that philosophy acquires within the early Church. Moreover, the Christian endorsement of philosophy as a missionary tool has its grounding in the apostolic Church and, consequentially, it has its grounding in the New Testament. In this way philosophy, utilized and re-functionalized by the apostles Paul and Luke themselves, in its special way, participates in the “authoritative
establishment of tradition by means of apostolic origin”. The missionary model laid-out in Acts 17:16-34 has lasting value and needs to be continuously re-actualized: the same follows suit for a faith-conducive practice of philosophy.

Key words: mission, philosophy, contact-point making, inculturation, evangelization, Acts 17, Areopagitica, apostle Paul and Athenian philosophers, re-actualization

Summary: The author endeavours to reconstruct the ways in which the relations between Russia and Serbia in the 20th and 21st century are reflected through the philosophies of both, respectively. Reasons are given for the special importance of institutional reception of Russian philosophy into Serbian cultural space, and vice versa. It is demonstrated that the relating of Russia and Serbia in philosophy is important theoretically and spiritually, and equally as a form of identity politics in culture.

Keywords: Russian philosophy, Serbian philosophy, Russian-Serbian relations, history of reception, institutionalization, marginalization, identity politics, self-specificity

Abstract: During the First World War the Faculty of Theology in Oxford received a group of over fifthy theological refugees from Serbia. Amongst the first to arrive was Fr Justin Popović. He was accepted to read for a Baccalaureus Litterarum degree. The thesis presented by Popović did not receive the merit of a certificated degree from the University’s examiners, especially due to his sweeping attacks on Western Christianity. This study explores pro et contra arguments in relation to such an outcome. The author demonstrates that, next to
a negative view of Western Christendom and Western culture, Popović does manifest a positive relation as well. This more inclusive side of Fr Justin’s relation to Western, particularly Anglican, Christians remains indicative of a dimension of mystical fellowship forged by those on both sides who, despite confessional differences, have become Christ-like themselves.
Key words: Oxford University, Serbian theological refugees, Dostoevsky, Justin Popović, Walter Frere, Anglican-Orthodox dialogue, Christian fellowship

Povzetek: Med prvo svetovno vojno je Teološka fakulteta v Oxfordu sprejela skupino nad petdeset teologov, ki so kot begunci prispeli iz Srbije. Med prvimi prišleki je bil oče Justin Popović. Odobrili so mu študij za pridobitev univerzitetne diplome (bakalavreat). Diplomskega dela, ki ga je predložil Popović, ocenjevalci niso potrdili, zlasti zaradi njegovih ostrih napadov, usmerjenih proti zahodnemu krščanstvu. Ta študija se poglablja v pro et contra v zvezi z razlogi za takšen razplet. Avtor dokazuje, da je Popović poleg svojega negativnega pogleda na zahodno krščanstvo in na zahodno kulturo izkazoval tudi pozitiven odnos. Omenjena bolj vključevalna plat Justinovega razmerja do zahodnih kristjanov, predvsem do anglikancev, ostaja povedna glede na razsežnost mističnega prijateljstva, h kateremu so težili udeleženci
obeh strani, s tem pa so kljub konfesionalnim razlikam postajali podobni Kristusu.

Ključne besede: univerza v Oxfordu, srbski teologi begunci, Dostojevski, Justin Popović, Walter Frere, anglikansko-pravoslavni dialog, krščansko prijateljstvo

Abstract: During the First World War the Faculty of Theology in Oxford received a group of over fifthly theological refugees from Serbia. Amongst the first to arrive was Fr Justin Popović. He was accepted to read for a Baccalaureus Litterarum degree. The thesis presented by Popović did not receive the merit of a certificated degree from the University’s examiners, especially due to his sweeping attacks on Western Christianity. This study explores pro et contra arguments in relation to such an outcome. The author demonstrates that, next to a negative view of Western Christendom and Western culture, Popović does manifest a positive relation as well. This more inclusive side of Fr Justin’s relation to Western, particularly Anglican, Christians remains indicative of a dimension of mystical fellowship forged by those on both sides who, despite confessional differences, have become Christ-like themselves.

Key words: Oxford University, Serbian theological refugees, Dostoevsky, Justin Popović, Walter Frere, Anglican-Orthodox dialogue, Christian fellowship

Sveti Justin Popović: kritično ovrednotenje britanske teologije, filozofije in znanosti

Povzetek: Med prvo svetovno vojno je Teološka fakulteta v Oxfordu sprejela skupino nad petdeset teologov, ki so kot begunci prispeli iz Srbije. Med prvimi prišleki je bil oče Justin Popović. Odobrili so mu študij za pridobitev univerzitetne diplome (bakalavreat). Diplomskega dela, ki ga je predložil Popović, ocenjevalci niso potrdili, zlasti zaradi njegovih ostrih napadov, usmerjenih proti zahodnemu krščanstvu. Ta študija se poglablja v pro et contra v zvezi z razlogi za takšen razplet. Avtor pokazuje, da je Popović poleg svojega negativnega pogleda na zahodno krščanstvo in na zahodno kulturo izkazoval tudi pozitiven odnos. Omenjena bolj vključevalna plat Justinovega razmerja do zahodnih kristjanov, predvsem do anglikancev, ostaja povedna glede na razsežnost mističnega prijateljstva, h kateremu so težili udeleženci obeh strani, s tem pa so kljub konfesionalnim razlikam postajali podobni Kristusu.

Ključne besede: univerza v Oxfordu, srbski teologi begunci, Dostojevski, Justin Popović, Walter Frere, anglikansko-pravoslavni dialog, krščansko prijateljstvo

Тhe author endeavours to demonstrates that Justin Popović’s Diary of Prayer (1920/1921–1925) may prove convincingly that Popović, at a very early age, endorses an essentially hesychastic relation towards prayer. As his critical reflection on Kant indicates, on the basis of such a structuring and understanding of prayer, notwithstanding the consequent grace-imbued experiences, he ventures to ground spiritual criteria for the evaluation of philosophical and theological doctrines: including those he accepts or reworks synthetically, as well as those he rejects, both those from the West and those from the East. In this sense he finds he cannot accept the philosophy of Kant, taken as framework for the understanding of God, humankind and the created order. For, as he concludes, such a philosopheme negates or deems illusory (at best brackets agnostically) precisely the very foundations of his hesychastic gnoseology and accordant methodology, including the ‘noumenal’ realities to which they both pertain. In virtue of the hermeneutical-critical reflections offered in this study the author makes clear the reasons why Popović views the Enlightenment philosophy of the West (Aufklärungsphilosophie) in a polemical-critical mode: basically as a tradition of thought heterogeneous in regard to the basic goals and premises of grounding spirituality, theory and practice in the Orthodox hesychastic tradition, to which he belongs in a particular way. He symbolizes his interpretation and application of hesychastic gnoseology and methodology by using the term ‘prayerful philosophy’. Part of the reason for disagreement and of parting of ways with the Enlightenment philosophy grounded on reason alone, rests in conflicted conceptions of the presuppositions and goals of the process of liberation (Emanzipationsprozess) by reason, including different understandings of the capacity and incapacity of precisely of reason (viz. rationally): especially in relation to the possibility or impossibility of transforming the cognitive faculties by virtue of divine grace. The author presents an extensive commentary regarding the first critique of Kant by Popović (6/19 Jan 1921). It represents his first, condensed, programmatic formulation of criticism generally of non-Christian and Christian philosophies of the Protestant West. (His Oxford thesis displays an analogous attitude towards things western, as early as 1916–1919, especially through Popović’s ‘identity-affirming’ re-reception of the Church fathers from the hands of mostly of Russian religious thinkers inspired by the tradition of Philokalia corpus).

In this study I critically discuss the religious philosophy of Nikolai F. Fyodorov. Beforehand I will offer a synoptic overview of its key components. The thought of Fyodorov may serve as a model for case study work in regard to two crucial questions: (1) What is the relation between the past and the future? and (2) What is the relation between faith and science? These questions receive their spiritual, theological and philosophical answers through Fyodorov's reflection on the (3) overcoming of death. In offering his answers Fyodorov taps into the innermost depths of Christian spirituality which is interpreted in ways which are not always 'Orthodox' in the conventional sense. On one hand he offers a vision which prophetically yet idiosyncratically anticipates the "resurrection of all by all" (viz. Philosophy of the Common Task): this in itself calls for a radical revision of humanity's guiding ethical, political and cultural principles (viz. Supramoralism). On the other hand, he expounds visionary proposals for the role science has to play precisely within the project of resurrecting the deceased and restoring free conscious life to all being (viz. Regulation). Fyodorov is acclaimed as one of the pioneering anticipators of climatology, rocket and space astronautics, cryonics, genetic engineering, cloning and body redesign; also, he is endorsed as the forerunner of Russian cosmism and influencer of transhumanism. His thought is radical, maximalist and limital. As well, it is informed by the purity of a moral saintliness. Inasmuch his philosophical vision may help us reexamine our own understanding of the relation of the past to the future, as well as the relation of faith to science, and, to re-address the predicament of dying. For the same reason it allows us to metacritically examine the neuralgic points of Fyodorov's proposals. Lastly, I strive to reflect the mentioned problematic within a historical perspective, hermeneutically, hoping to provide orientation points for further discussion. "At the basis of his philosophy was his grieving for the human predicament, and there was no man on earth who felt such sorrow at the death of people and such thirst to return them to life" (Nikolai Berdyaev, 1915).

Summary: Оn the occasion of the jubilee year, the author summarizes Dostoevsky’s attitude towards Christianity and faith, reflecting on the “damned” questions that Dostoevsky dealt with in his works, such as the meaning of suffering and evil, the issue of reforming society and the individual, and the existence and justification of God. He thematizes the spiritual – to wit, the Christological and ecclesial – solution of these questions in Dostoevsky’s work, as well as the presence of a certain Christian typology of character regarding the protagonists of Dostoevsky’s novels. This enables an affirmative but measured assessment of those approaches that regard the presence of Christ and Orthodox spirituality in the opus of Dostoevsky as either secondary or irrelevant in relation to other dimensions, contents and aspects: those approaches that, for example, persist in an immanentist-critical approach to Dostoevsky’s work, in the name of theoretical-literary, philosophical-existential, deep-psychoanalytic or comparative-cultural analyses and reflections. In addition to the polyphony and non-completability that Bakhtin legitimately insists on, the author shows it is important to keep or appropriate what one may call symphony and perfectability. The latter above all signify the fundamental harmony (συμφωνία), or moments of harmony, of Dostoevsky’s faith in Christ as the God-man with his own soul. Dostoevsky’s works testify that the leitmotifs of Christian themes in these works are due not only to “some voices” of “some heroes” but, rather, that in them (and above them) the voice of the author — Fyodor Mihailovich is noticeable, as much as the voice of God through him. Seen from this perspective, which as a vertical intersects the horizontal (Bakhtin’s) perspective, and which (despite its transcendent origin) is no less immanent than the horizontal one (in its own specific way), it imposes itself not only as legitimate but as illuminative (based on the faith of both reader and writer) to affirm a Christian interpretive strategy as the deepest horizon of contextualization of Dostoevsky’s work: followed in fact by many Dostoevskian scholars of Orthodox provenance: from Bulgakov through Berdyaev to Popović and Evdokimov, and others. Certainly, in reading Dostoevsky, as on a chess-board, readers become participants in the intertwined open drama of the novel. Nevertheless, the possibility must be taken into account that this participation, under the presupposition of an act of personal faith illuminated by the Spirit, is at the same time an act of participation in the life of faith of both: Dostoevsky and ourselves — in the one Jesus Christ. No matter how enlightening, the interpretation of Dostoevsky’s work cannot be reduced to a discussion of the theoretical-literary, compositional or character-psychological aspects of his novels, or to other “immanentist” theorizations. The deepest interpretation of Dostoevsky’s personality, opus and creativity – in the spiritual sense – is openned by the Christological hermeneutic framework given through his experience of the (Orthodox) Church. After all, the discovery of the dialogical structure of the novels and the non-completability of the characters coincides with the dialogue with Dostoevsky and his heroes as personalities who, as “images of the living God”, attain or can attain perfectability through faith and life in the Son of God, Christ, whom Dostoevsky unequivocally confessed as the irreplaceable and primary meaning of life.

Key words: Dostoevsky, Christianity, faith, immanent critique, transcendent critique, dialogical polyphonic structure, Christological hermeneutical reading

Апстракт: Поводом године јубилеја, аутор се осврће на однос Достојевског према хришћанству и вери рефлектујући „проклета“ питања којима се Достојевски бавио у својим делима, каква су питање смисла страдања и зла, питање реформе друштва и појединца, и питање постојања и оправдања Бога. Он тематизује духовно – христолошко и црквено – решавање тих питања у делу Достојевског, као и присуство извесне хришћанске типологије карактера протагониста романа Достојевског. То омогућује афирмативну али одмеравајућу оцену оних приступа који су у делу Достојевског присуство Христа и православне духовности видели или као другостепено или као ирелевантно у односу на друге димензије, садржаје и аспекте: приступа који су, рецимо, истрајавали на иманентистичко-критичком захвату у дело Достојевског а у име теоријско-књижевних, философско-егзистенцијалних, дубинско-психоаналитичких или компаратистичко-културолошких анализа и рефлексија. C Уз полифоничност и недовршивост на којој легитимно инсистира Бахтин, показује аутор, битно је да задржимо или укључимо и оно што можемо назвати симфоничност и усавршивост. Потоње пре свега означава темељну усаглашеност (συμφωνία) вере Достојевског у Христа као Богочовека са сопственом душом. Дела Достојев¬ског сведоче како лајтмотиви хришћанских тема у тим делима нису само „неки гласови“ „неких јунака“ него да је у њима (и поврх њих) приметан и глас аутора — Михајла Фјодоровича, колико и глас Бога преко њега. Гледано из те перспективе, која као вер-тикална пресеца хоризонталну (бахтиновску) перспективу, и која (упрскос свом трансцендентном пореклу) није мање иманентна од хоризонталне (али на свој специфичан начин), намеће се не само као легитимно већ као битно да се, на основу вере и читаоца и писца, афирмише хришћанска интерпретативна стратегија као онај надубљи хоризонт контекстуализације стваралаштва Достојевског, којим су узорито корачали многи теолози достојевскиолози православне провенијенције: од Булгакова преко Берђајева до Поповића и Евдокимова, и других. Свакако да у читању Достојевског, као на шаховском пољу, читаоци постају учесници испреплетано отворене драме романа. Међутим, мора се уважити могућност да је то уче-ствовање, под претпоставком чина личне вере обасјане Духом, уједно чин партиципације у животу вере и Достојевског и нас самих: у једном Исусу Христу. Ма колико била обасјавајућа, интерпетација дела Достојевског не може се свести на расправу о теоријско-литерарним, композицијским или карактерно-психолошким видовима његових романа, или на друге „иманентистичке“ теоретизације. Најдубље тумачење личности, дела и стваралаштва Достојевског – у духовном смислу – даје христолошки хермененутички оквир задат преко његовог опита православља и Цркве. Уосталом, откриће дијалошке структуре романа и незавршивости ликова (децентрираност) коинцидира дијалогу са Достојевским и његовим јунацима као личностима које, као „образи Бога живог“, усавршења могу задобити или задобијају вером и животом управо у Сину Божијем Христу (рецентрираност) којег је Достојевски недвосмислено исповедио као ничим замењив а примарни смисао живота.

Кључне речи: Достојевски, хришћанство, вера, иманентна критика, трансцендентна критика, дијалошка полифона структура, христолошко херменеутичко читање

Тhe author strives to reconstruct Shestov’s early philosophical development from his initial moralist position to his markedly anti-moralist position. This includes observing the manifold ways in which Shestov deconstructs the Kantian foundations of Tolstoy’s literary philosophy which, as he argues, beclouds the ‘authentic’ Tolstoy: to wit, the creator of War and Peace and-or the creator of The Death of Ivan Ilych. In doing so, Shestov rejects the ‘self-same’ Tolstoy moralist and, simultaneously, discovers the ‘different-other’ Tolstoy tragedist, whom he empathizes with. In virtue of the said, the author displays the premises for understanding the successive ‘turns’ in Shestov’s early philosophy which usher a radical standpoint. These lead the Russian thinker from his moralistic to his post-moralistic phase, including his pioneering contributions to existential philosophizing, fertilized by Dostoevsky’s and Nietzsche’s tragic-existential experiences and critiques of rationalistic moralism. As well, the author reveals the ‘deconstructive’ mode of Shestov’s existential thought and, additionally, the struggles of Shestov to advance beyond a nihilistic outcome of his vitriolic criticisms аgainst the established ‘sons’ of the history of human spirit and culture. Тhis is achieved by Shestov’s re-formulation of the question of meaning in terms of a new seeking after God. The author indicates the significance of Shestov’s unique mode of bringing into question transcendentalist rationality and deontic ethics (in exploring the case of the Kantian and non-Kantian Tolstoy). He concludes that Shestov’s conditional success with regard to critique of the coalition of theoretical and practical reason has nothing to put in their place, except an anguished deferral of hope for salvation onto something or someone other than impersonally objective reason and all-punishing morality. Lev remarkably, he takes hold of the Gospel of Jesus, literally believing the wonder-making capacity of unconditionally forgiving mercy: thus he invokes (extorts by desperation) a revision of the merciless strictures of raciocratic moralism.

The author undertakes an exegetic-homiletic interpretation of the narrative about Lazarus according to the Gospel of John. The identification, analysis and understanding of crucial aspects of the section under consideration is enabled by the application of the combined exegetical method of four senses deposited in the NT text (verbal-historical, allegorical-typological, moral-tropological, and anagogical-spiritual), aided by an implementation of an intertextual and intertestamental contextual approach, and, by the presupposition that it is the Eucharistic telōs, ultimately, that determines the constitution of the New Israel (as the Church) in Jesus as Christ, eschatologically regarded (Rev. 4, 9; 7, 12). The Eucharistic telōs is presupposed according to one of the magisterial lines of reading the NT as given by the tradition of the Orthodox church fathers. After a series of exegetical reflections (intoned existentially and spiritually) the author presents four special messages of the respective section, viz. Јn. 11, 1–46 and 12, 1–3. Firstly, radical repentance and confession of faith in love stating that Jesus is the Christ, and Son of the living God, opens Jesus’ divine action which restores the human person and human community. Secondly, the goal of Jesus’ activity is to call, gather and cure the people of God, the New Israel, and to embrace his sheep around himself as the Sheppard who keeps, proclaims and implements the will of his Father. Thirdly, the Eucharistic character of the newly established community is implied by the gathering of the faithful in a thanksgiving service (eucharistia) to Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour. This is conducted through the supper in Bethany as well, symbolizing (albeit in rudimentary form) the Eucharist. Fourthly,  the author demonstrates how John allows us to discern three essential aspects of Jesus as a person: (1)  he is God — Jesus is not a Man only: in Jn. 11, 17–27 Jesus lays-out a promise which only real God can fulfill; (2) He is Man — Jesus is not only God, he is equally Man: in Jn. 11, 27–38 Jesus offers a consolation which only a real Man (human) can extend; (3) Jesus is not only God, Jesus is not only Man, he is equally — God-man: in Jn. 11, 38–44 (and Jn. 12, 1–3) Jesus gives a (fore)fulfillment of a crucial promise: that we are the children of God (who will be) exempt from death in and by gathering around the Lord Jesus as of the Kingdom of the Father’s glory. It is in this eschatological direction (primarily by the usage of typological and anagogical interpretation) that the author endeavours to understand the meaning of the message given in the narrative about Lazarus.

The monograph Russian Philosophy Abroad: History and Modernity (2017) is devoted to complex research of Russian philosophical studies in its history and modernity. Major conceptions and intellectual portraits of well-known specialists on Russian thought from USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia, and China are shown and analyzed. Original writings of foreign authors are included to show the possibility and need of creative dialogue with scholars abroad.

Full professor of the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade, Bogdan Lubardić, will hold a lecture entitled "Christianity and diplomacy: the relationship of mediation and complementarity between the church and realpolitik", which will be held on July 10, 2023 at 12 noon in the hall of the Institute of Social Sciences on the first floor. In the first part, Bogdan Lubardić will touch on the common foundation of Christianity and diplomacy, which, in principle, are aimed at the peaceful resolution of social and political conflicts, and both represent traditional civilizational achievements of pacifying social divisions and conflicts. In this sense, Lubardić will present the thesis that Christianity can offer realpolitik an ethical normative framework so that the field of politics does not fall completely into naked pragmatism, while realpolitik can offer Christianity and religion in general a factual framework for social action in the direction of concrete pacification of social conflicts and divisions, in accordance with the peace-making religious normative pattern. The lecture is part of the project of the Center for Sociological and Anthropological Research of the Institute of Social Sciences, "Individual and social relevance of religion in contemporary Serbia", and within the sub-project "Geopolitics and religion: the influence of religious currents on strategic geopolitical currents in Serbia and the Balkans". The lecture is led by dr Neven Cvetićanin. // Redovni profesor Pravoslavnog bogoslovskog fakulteta u Beogradu, Bogdan Lubardić, održaće predavanje pod naslovom "Hrišćanstvo i diplomatija: odnos posredovanja i nadopunjavanja između crkve i realpolitike", koje će se održati 10. jula 2023 u 12 sati u sali Instituta društvenih nauka na prvom spratu. U prvom delu Bogdan Lubardić dotaći će se zajedničkog temelja hrišćanstva i diplomatije koji su, načelno, usmereni ka mirnom razrešavanju društvenih i političkih konflikata, te i jedno i drugo predstavljaju tradicionalne civilizacijske tekovine pacifikovanja društvenih rascepa i sukoba. U tom smislu Lubardić će izložiti tezu da hrišćanstvo može ponuditi realpolitici etički normativni okvir kako polje politike ne bi potpuno palo u ogoljeni pragmatizam, dok realpolitika može ponuditi hrišćanstvu i religiji uopšte faktički okvir za društveno delovanje u pravcu konkretne pacifikacije društvenih sukoba i rascepa, shodno mirotvornom religijskom normativnom obrascu. Predavanje je deo projekta Centra za sociološka i antropološka istraživanja Instituta društvenih nauka, "Individualna i društvena relevantnost religije u savremenoj Srbiji", te u okviru podprojekta "Geopolitika i religija: uticaj religijskih tokova na strateške geopolitičke tokove u Srbiji i na Balkanu". Predavanje vodi dr Neven Cvetićanin.