This article deals with the question of the interrelation between two papers, both called, in short, “Onomatodoxy”, dedicated to the doctrine of Name-glorification (Imiaslavie, Onomatodoxy), both of which were created in line with the Neo-Patristic movement in the Russian philosophy of the Silver Age. One of these papers is by Alexei Losev and the other by Pavel Florensky. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds to state that Losev’s “Onomatodoxy” was written either after Florensky created his own “Onomatodoxy”, i.e., after (...) November 1922, or, at the earliest, after Florensky started to give clandestine lectures about Onomatodoxy in Moscow (where Losev lived), i.e., not earlier than spring 1921. Therefore, Losev’s article “Onomatodoxy” could have been intended for the religious-philosophical collection of articles planned for publishing by Yaschenko in 1922 in Berlin. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to offer an overview of the long-lasting friendship between Georges Florovsky and St. Justin Popović, as well as their common project to build an Orthodox theological synthesis on the basis of the patristic tradition. The paper focuses on three periods from Florovsky’s and Popović’s lives, from late 1910 to early 1920, from the late 1920s to late 1930s, and finally into the 1940s. I argue that in the first period both authors developed their theological (...) visions relying on Solovyov and Florensky, on the one hand, and in opposition to the ecclesial nationalism of the Slavophiles and conservative Orthodox hierarchs, on the other hand. Further, I investigate how during the late 1920s and 1930s both authors searched for an Orthodox synthesis mostly in dialogue with their Orthodox predecessors, especially Solovyov, Florensky, and Bulgakov, as well as the modern western philosophical tradition. The focus will shift then to the 1940s, which was characterized by frequent meetings between Florovsky and Popović in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I argue that in this period the Church Fathers became for both authors the golden standard for Orthodox theology, and the idea of the Neopatristic synthesis developed in full scale. (shrink)

The letter from Georges Florovsky to Davis McCaughey is a reflection after reading the Report The Era of Atomic Power: Report of a Commission (1946). Florovsky gives his own arguments against the development of research concerning nuclear weapons and their use. These include: treating an attempt at a technical transformation of the world as a human claim to put oneself in God’s place, i.e., to be a God-man. Another group of indictments against the use of the atomic bomb concerned ethical (...) issues and human responsibility for the war. Florovsky’s letter is his contribution to the discussion on the threat posed by the atomic bomb. (shrink)

As part of the work to “transcend the dichotomy” of the “two schools” of the Russian Religious Renaissance, the study of individual theologians reveals different approaches to theological synthesis. The present paper is a study of Nicholas Afanasiev’s patristic engagement and the specifics of his approach to neo-patristics. Two ecclesiological conceptions emerged as consistent themes in his work: eucharistic ecclesiology and ecumenical theology. Afanasiev was a trained historian, and his analysis of the Fathers of the early Church—in particular Ignatius of (...) Antioch, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr—became a catalyst of original theological insight. This was the case with his eucharistic ecclesiology and his influence on the ecumenical movement near the end of his life. The originality of his neo-patristic insight differentiated Afanasiev from other theologians of the Russian Religious Renaissance. (shrink)

The conception of the neo-patristic, despite its notional meaning being self-evident, continues to confound scholars in its specific detail. In this regard, a question of interest concerns the relationship between Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and neo-patristics. Conventional wisdom posits that Bulgakov ascribed to the “Russian school” with a philosophically-oriented approach to theology, whose interest in patristics was limited. Reading Bulgakov’s writings, however, reveals greater engagement with patristics. The present paper considers Bulgakov’s engagement with the patristic tradition in the émigré journal Put’ (...) in three areas—early ecclesiological writings, dogmatic theology, ecclesiology and ecumenism—and details the nature of his patristic engagement across part of his formative thinking. This has a bearing on his sophiology. It is proposed that Bulgakov actively engaged with the patristic tradition, although his work had a high degree of originality. This afforded Bulgakov a unique “neo-patristic” lens, as compared with theologians of the Russian diaspora in a broader sense. (shrink)

The article attempts to compare personalist aspects in the works of Vasily Zenkovsky and Vladimir Lossky. It is shown that two types of philosophical personalism (metaphysical and existentialist) in the history of Russian thought set the framework for two types of theological personalism presented respectively by Zenkovsky and Lossky. The philosophy of Lev Lopatin was the important source for the principles of Zenkovsky’s personalist vision. The relevant philosophical background on Lossky’s personalism is provided by Nikolai Berdyaev’s works. The article considers (...) the deep criticism by the French theologian Jean-Claude Larchet, who seeks to demonstrate philosophical and existentialist sources of Lossky’s theological personalism, rather than patristical ones. It is noted that the criticism addressed to Lossky’s theory may slide to challenging the very possibility of an Orthodox theological personalism as a line of thought. It is shown that Zenkovsky’s works, presenting a nonexistentialist type of personalism, do not provoke such criticism. It’s concluded that whereas Lossky’s legacy in its personalistic aspect is challenged, Zenkovsky’s personalism enables another way of conceiving “Orthodox theological personalism.”. (shrink)

The theological program of Archpriest Georges Florovsky is understood as a conception of the neopatristic synthesis that he developed. From the beginning, its appearance was associated with the participation of its creator in a public discussion about the historical ways of Russia within the framework of the Eurasian movement, then, with his scientific investigations into the history of Russian Orthodoxy and ancient Christian thought and later with his activity in the ecumenical movement. It is noteworthy that the positive content of (...) the program for modern Orthodox theology turned out to be an indirect response to broader challenges of historical and social order. The focus of attention in this case are some peculiarities in the reception of the program in international and Russian contexts, which in turn requires the clarification of the content of its main points, such as a question about a true fatherland or the sense and meaning of Christian Hellenism. The conclusion notes the significant relevance and openness of Florovsky’s ideas for modern Orthodox theology. (shrink)

This article discusses the meanings of “creativity”—tvorchestvo—as we encounter it in Georges Florovsky’s thought, first and foremost in his magnum opus Ways of Russian Theology (1937). Tvorchestvo had by this time become a key concept in Russian pre-revolutionary and later émigré thought. It is associated above all with Nikolai Berdyaev’s philosophy, but it also plays an important role in Sergei Bulgakov’s philosophy of economy. In both cases, it stands for the human response to divine creation. Moreover, and somewhat less famously, (...) it was also an epistemological concept in the religious idealism of Vladimir Solovyov as well as in Russian neo-Kantianism (Fyodor Stepun), where it stood for the active, synthetic faculty of our minds. Florovsky, meanwhile, used it as a description of how we should relate to the patristic heritage, but also to history more generally: Our attitude should be “creative,” active, as well as both backward- and forward-looking. This “return to the Fathers” was a central component of Florovsky’s neopatristic program, but, interestingly, in order to conceptualize this return, Florovsky took over a concept from traditions that his own approach otherwise firmly criticized. By analyzing Florovsky’s use of tvorchestvo, this article addresses the broader question as to the differences and parallels between the neopatristic movement and the legacy of the Russian Renaissance (Silver Age). (shrink)

Georges Florovsky’s essay ‘On the Grounding of Logical Relativism’ has attracted attention from various theologians and students of Russian thought but has until now avoided a serious philosophical analysis and critique. The complex but thought-provoking essay presents Florovsky’s so-called logical relativism, a position which he seemed to maintain for the rest of his career. This paper will show that by conflating ‘scientific’ with ‘alethic’ relativism, Florovsky exposed himself to detrimental philosophical and theological critique. After some methodological remarks, the first part (...) of the paper will introduce Florovsky’s article, and present its central argument as a scientific relativism which is then conflated with a truly logical or alethic relativism. The second and third parts will highlight the philosophical and theological problems with Florovsky’s position. (shrink)

This article presents the context of Georges Florovsky’s letter to Davis McCaughey. The creation of the atomic bomb and the philosophical and theological challenges it caused are also presented. The content of the Report The Era of Atomic Power: of a Commission, which was initiated by the British Council of Churches, and McCaughey’s participation in its writing, are presented as well. Finally, Florovsky’s attitude towards science and technical progress, and the relevance of Florovsky’s letter are also shown.

This article is an editorial introduction to a special issue of Studies in East European Thought devoted to neopatristics. The circumstances of the creation of the neopatristic synthesis announced by Georges Florovsky during the First Orthodox Congress in Athens are considered. The main philosophical and theological aspects that are currently discussed in the context of patristic renewal are also addressed. In particular, it is shown that the sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov also fits into the patristic paradigm. Finally, the topics of (...) the articles included in this special issue are presented. (shrink)

Georges Florovsky, in 1936, called for a revival of the teaching of the Church Fathers. At the same time, Fr. Joseph Bocheński formulated the program for the renewal of Thomism by means of formal logic. In this paper, I propose to integrate these two projects. Analytic Patristics aims at expressing and developing patristic thought with the tools of analytic philosophy. The broad program of the logic of religion formulated by Bocheński included semiotics, methodology, and the formal logic of religion. I (...) present here three examples of the integration of analytic philosophy and patristics in these three areas. I discuss first Basil Lourié’s paraconsistent interpretation of Dionysius the Areopagite’s theory of the divine names, then Richard Swinburne’s efforts to revive Orthodox natural theology, and finally Beau Branson’s reconstruction of Gregory of Nyssa’s metaphysics of the Trinity. These examples perfectly illustrate how analytic philosophy can contribute to the development of patristics, and how the tradition of the Church Fathers can inspire contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. (shrink)

The relationship between the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov and the neo-patristic movement within Orthodoxy is well-known. The neo-patristic synthesis won the day, and it is the dominant theological tradition within Orthodoxy. It is time for a serious reappraisal of Bulgakov’s theology by the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian theologians because Christian theology is faced with a looming bioethical issue, cybernetic enhancement technology. This technology raises a cybernetic-ethical version of the Sorites paradox that leads us to inquire at “what point do technological (...) enhancements take away or replace our humanity?” and “are cyborg enhancements ethical from an Orthodox Christian perspective?” Bulgakov’s Sophiology may provide important tools for assessing cyborg enhancements and answering these questions. This paper argues that Bulgakov’s Sophiology, particularly his theology of human creativity and belief that we can and should anticipate the spiritual bodies that we will have in the general resurrection, offers a framework for assessing the morality of technological alterations to our present bodily existence from an Orthodox perspective. (shrink)

In 1922, many representatives of the Russian Intelligentsia, including many philosophers, were exiled from the young soviet state. Many left with the so-called Philosophy Steamer (Chamberlain in The philosophy steamer: Lenin and the exile of the intelligensia (2006) Atlantic Books). The exiled philosophers tried to go on with their previous professional lives in cities as Prague, Berlin and Paris. The St. Serge Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, founded by, among others, Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944), became the new center of Russian religious (...) philosophy and theology in Europe. Soon, however, the community of immigrant Russian religious philosophers and theologians was divided by conflicting opinions, and fell apart in various brotherhoods and movements. An important conflict was the so-called Sophia controversy: the Brotherhood of St. Photius, which included Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), as well as the famous spokesman of the Neopatristic Synthesis, Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), attacked the Brotherhood of St. Sophia, which included the above mentioned Bulgakov. His Sophiology, or study of Sophia, Divine Wisdom, was accused of heresy on the instigation of Florovsky and Lossky. From this Sophia controversy, the Neopatristic Synthesis emerged as the dominant school of Russian Orthodox Theology, whereas Sophiology fell practically into oblivion. This article will attempt to answer the question whether there is still room for a re-valuation of the sophiological stance in Orthodox theology through a survey of recent literature on the subject. The article will conclude the affirmative: namely, that the controversy is shown to be the result of a conflict between generations and the necessity to empower their Orthodox identity in emigration, rather than the result of intrinsic philosophical or theological differences. (shrink)

This paper focuses on what can be said to be the definitive features of the approach to theology by three Russian theologians: Fathers Sergii Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky as well as the Venerable Father Sophrony Sakharov. The article argues that the following common themes characterize the nature of their theology. First, personalism, in other words, the use of the term “person”, which they extensively applied to both God and human and angelic beings. The concept of person is indispensable in the (...) thought of all three theologians. The second common theme is how the authors understood the relationship between theology and experience and what is the significance of religious experience for philosophical theology. Finally, all three theologians agree that when theological truths are expressed in human language the problem of interpretation consequently arises. However, they answer in different ways the question of the number and status of possible theological languages. I conclude that it is St. Sophrony Sakharov who in his life and theology realized Florovsky’s famous call for a neo-patristic synthesis. (shrink)