An Academic Colloquium at the University of Belgrade
Belgrade, December 12, 2023
On February 2, 2023, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, a distinguished Orthodox theologian and honorary doctorate recipient from various global universities, including the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Belgrade, passed away, resting in the hope of Resurrection.
In recognition of Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ unique contributions and theological work within contemporary Orthodox discourse, the Group for Systematic Theology at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade held a tribute as part of a colloquium on December 12, 2023, at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology. This event featured a series of presentations to honor his memory and theological legacy. Given the extensive and diverse topics in the Metropolitan’s scholarly work, the colloquium was divided into three sessions, led by three moderators and featuring eleven speakers, including professors, educators, and doctoral students.
Presbyter Professor Dr. Aleksandar Djakovac, serving as the moderator for the first session, commenced the symposium with expressions of gratitude and extended a warm welcome to all the participants.
“Our Group for Systematic Theology has been organizing gatherings of this kind for years. Then we talked about it and thought about how we will organize a meeting where our doctoral students will have the opportunity to hear each other, something Metropolitan John Zizioulas insisted on.” After these words, the presbyter referred to the paradigmatic problem of forgetting his theological predecessors and teachers, ending with a direct statement: “Most of us got acquainted with theology in the true sense of the word, for the most part, through the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, and through his student, the bishop of Požarevac-Braničevo Ignatije”.
Following his introductory remarks, Prof. Dr. Aleksandar Djakovac invited Bishop Ignatije (Midić) of Požarevac-Braničevo, a disciple and proponent of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon’s theology, to speak. Bishop Ignatije commenced his lecture titled “Neopatristic Synthesis in the Works of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon” by expressing his gratitude for the invitation from the Group for Systematic Theology, appreciating their efforts in organizing the event.
Bishop Ignatije began his assessment of Metropolitan John Zizioulas' work by stating, “The metropolitan is known to everyone, and time will show that he is one of the greatest theologians of our time.” Framing his talk within the context of neo-patristic synthesis, the bishop highlighted the complexity, coherence, richness, and depth of the metropolitan's personal and theological contributions. He emphasized that the metropolitan’s works, covering a wide range of topics, are deeply connected to the life of the Church and the holistic understanding of humanity. Furthermore, Bishop Ignatije discussed the fundamental methodological framework underpinning Zizioulas’ theology.
Bishop Ignatije noted, “A defining trait of the metropolitan's work is his profound interest in addressing ontological issues relevant to the life of the Church, contemporary humanity, and the world at large.” He approaches these challenges using the method of neopatristic synthesis, which he regards as a crucial element in the theology of the great and ancient Church fathers.
In his systematic approach to the topic, the presenter emphasized a clear definition of neopatristic synthesis, particularly its core principle as emphasized by Father Georgije Florovski and authentically applied by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas): “The Neopatristic synthesis means that the theology of the ancient fathers should be studied as a model for addressing contemporary theological issues, with the aim of achieving unity in the Church of Christ and the Christianization of our contemporary world.” The bishop's presentation primarily focused on specific examples of how neopatristic synthesis is manifested in the metropolitan’s works. He covered various theological aspects, including personal triadology, the ontology of person, Christology, ecclesiology, ktisiology, soteriology, anthropology, and eschatology. To conclude his discourse, he used the following indicative words:
“The theology of the apostles as well as the ancient fathers, followed by the metropolitan of Pergamon, was built in the context of the ontological problems of man and the world. If theology does not deal with the problem of death, which is primarily an ontological problem, as well as with the eternal life of each person and the world as a whole, then it is not even needed.”
In the first session, the initial speaker was Presbyter Assoc. Dr. Vukašin Milićević, who presented on “John Zizioulas as a Systematic Theologian: An Attempt at a General Evaluation.” Dr. Milićević commenced his presentation with the following statement: “John Zizioulas is, and I mean that without any reservation, the greatest modern Orthodox systematic theologian.”
Building upon this foundation, the presenter offered several concrete reasons to support his statement, including: the integration of all theological aspects through a creative and critical philosophical reinterpretation of the key concept of personality in Zizioulas' work; the metropolitan's role as a critic who always operates within the bounds of Orthodoxy, thereby portraying it as a source of creativity and inspiration; and finally, the author encapsulates a key reason with the following words:
“Zizioulas’ thought is completely relevant for the Church, because it addresses the key problems that our church reality is facing and can be taken as a reliable guide for their solution.”
Concluding his presentation, the speaker acknowledged the presence of critique regarding the metropolitan's approach. He emphasized that such criticism does not undermine its significance. Rather, it highlights the need for contemporary generations of Orthodox theologians, who have been nurtured on Zizioulas’ works, to actively work on addressing these identified shortcomings. Prof. Milićević thus concluded his talk with the notion that while there is scope for further development and exploration, it must be built upon the authentic foundation established by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).
Following this introduction, the moderator then welcomed the next speaker, PhD student Nemanja Veličković, to discuss the subject “Reception of the Theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas by Serbian Theologians.” Veličković outlined the objective of his presentation right from the start.
“The aim of this presentation is not to examine the specific dogmatic teachings of Metropolitan John of Pergamon, but to provide a chronological overview of the impact of his theological work in our region and the influence it has had on prominent academic theologians.”
Thus, he analyzed the impact and influence of Metropolitan John’s theology through three key entities: firstly, through Venerable Justin of Ćelije and his students, with a particular focus on the blessed Bishop Atanasije Jevtić; secondly, among the faculty and professors of theology; and thirdly, specifically through the contributions of Bishop Ignatije (Midić) of Požarevac-Braničevo.
Concluding the first session, Presbyter Professor Dr. Aleksandar Djakovac presented on “Metropolitan John Zizioulas and his critics: personality and essence.” He began with the notion that influential thinkers often incite debate and criticism, emphasizing the value and necessity of constructive criticism within theological discourse. Building on this, Prof. Djakovac clearly stated:
“In the past fifty years, it is undoubtedly Metropolitan John Zizioulas who has had the most significant and positively impactful contributions within the realm of Orthodox theology and beyond.”
Following this, the speaker specifically addressed the critiques of Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ approach to the ontology of the person by three scholars: Lucian Turkescu, Jean-Claude Larchet, and Nicholas Ludovikos, focusing on what is “fundamentally important for the metropolitan, but also for us.” He detailed the criticisms of these authors, which revolved around the claim that Zizioulas did not accurately or authentically interpret sources, overlooked certain theological aspects, and disproportionately emphasized and recontextualized elements to suit his position. Recognizing the potential risks of these criticisms, particularly their implications for the concept of personality in a triadic context, the presenter concluded with the following words:
“Upon reviewing the fathers and considering the critics, it appears to me that the theological approach of Metropolitan Zizioulas alone forms the foundation and assurance of the orthodoxy and coherence of our church's theology in alignment with the theology of the fathers.”
The second session, moderated by Professor Rade Kisić, Ph.D., began with a presentation by Aleksandar Glišović on the topic “Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ Approach to the Ecclesiological Question of the Relationship Between One and Many.” Colleague Glišović initiated his presentation stating,
“If we examine the works of Metropolitan Zizioulas, we encounter perspectives asserting that the Church must inherently embody the unity of both one and many, or the viewpoint that the Church is, at the same time, singular and plural in its nature.”
Expanding on this premise, Glišović delved into the core question of his research: What foundation underpins Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon's stance on this issue? Beginning with a response to this query, he explored the philosophical debate surrounding the concepts of the One and the Many, progressing to the theological and ecclesiological significance of this interrelation. After a thorough analysis of these implications, the presenter arrived at the following conclusion:
“In the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, the concepts of one and many are intrinsically interconnected, and the Eucharist serves as the pivotal point of their convergence.”
Recognizing the critical nature of the topic concerning the soul and its representation in both specific and broader theological contexts, the subsequent presenter, Protodeacon Professor Dr. Zlatko Matić, focused his analysis on the open questions in Metropolitan John of Pergamon's thought. His presentation, titled “Teaching about the (Im)mortality of the Soul in the Work of Metropolitan John of Pergamon,” began with a defining motto:
“The immortality of the soul is not rejected in any of my written texts,” declares Metropolitan John of Pergamon.
In his comprehensive theological analysis, Professor Matić centered his presentation on two pivotal questions: how Metropolitan Zizioulas perceives the concept of immortality in general, particularly the immortality of the soul, and how his views can be integrated into contemporary Orthodox theology. A notable aspect of this presentation is its reliance on the Metropolitan’s latest monograph, “Remembering the Future: Toward an Eschatological Ontology,” which examines this issue from an ontological-eschatological perspective. Professor Matić began by referencing Metropolitan Zizioulas’ fundamental "ktisiological" views, particularly the notion that death, as the ultimate enemy, is an ontological category. He underscored this by stating, “The ontological problem (death) requires an ontological solution (resurrection).” Building on this, the protodeacon substantiated his argument with a specific example:
“The fundamental error lies in seeking the ontological solution to the problem of death in the immortality of the soul.” Alongside his mentor, George Florovsky, Zizioulas refutes this approach to addressing the issue of death because, “the soul is not the ontological foundation of a human being, nor is it a subject or a hypostasis [...] Mere survival of the soul does not suffice to affirm the continued existence of a person. The resurrection of the body is essential as the ultimate eschatological act.”
At this juncture, the presenter firmly stated that the resurrection pertains to individual personalities, not a singular great being (τό εἶναι), because hypostasis, as the primary ontological category, is defined by the relationships a person forms throughout life. Building on this concept, the presenter further elaborated: “That's why the resurrection is the re-establishment of the relationships that constituted the other, which were severed by death.” He clarified that resurrection isn't merely about the rising of individuals or autonomous beings; rather, it’s about reconstituting a community, not just the physical revival of bodies. After establishing this viewpoint, the presenter then explored its direct implications for the central theme of his presentation.
“Even if the soul is immortal, it requires enhypostasization or, in the Metropolitan's terminology, deification.”
In concluding his presentation, the protodeacon offered an eschatological viewpoint on the discussed topic.
“The aim of our existence is to rise and retire with 'Maranatha' on our lips, to inhale and exhale in its rhythm, allowing our heartbeats to echo our yearning for the Lord's swift arrival, to fervently call out to Him: ‘How long, Lord, will You delay Your coming?’ ‘Come, Lord’—this is the essence of this presentation, and, it appears, the central message of the Metropolitan's entire body of work.”
The final speaker of the second session, Presbyter Stefan Jovanović, presented on “The Body as an Icon of God in the Anthropology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas.” He commenced his talk with the following statement:
“Despite the limited number of works in Metropolitan John Zizioulas's bibliography that address the theology of the body, those that exist are profoundly detailed,” began Presbyter Stefan Jovanović. He initiated his lecture by discussing the relevance of this topic in today's digital realm, highlighting the necessity of addressing it within the contexts of triadology, ecclesiology, and anthropology, as is characteristic of the Metropolitan of Pergamon’s approach.
In his presentation, Presbyter Stefan segmented his discussion into various segments: exploring different perspectives the Metropolitan holds on the role and significance of the body; examining the variances in approaches recognized by the Metropolitan; delving into the relationship between the body and the icon of God in humanity; and considering the status of the body within eschatological reality.
Concluding his presentation, the speaker stated, “Contemporary challenges compel the Church to consistently reaffirm her somatology. Today's theology faces two paths: understanding the body as a natural component of human beings, tinged with essentialism, or perceiving the body as a divine gift through which God's plan for humanity is realized, fostering a community reflective of the Trinity. [...] When the body is comprehended in this manner, it is seen as the icon of God, as concluded by the Metropolitan.”
The final session, the third one, moderated by Protodeacon Professor Zlatko Matić, Ph.D., commenced with a presentation by PhD student Stefan Pejaković on “God and Revelation—Triadology with Metropolitan Zizioulas and Liberal Theologians.” Pejaković began by stating, “I will try to highlight certain aspects that stand in contrast to other teachings, not only from past eras but also those prevailing today, specifically the views of some liberal theologians.”
He further illustrated his presentation's focus using the examples of Count Zinzendorf and Schleiermacher and their interpretations of the nature of God. Discussing the first liberal theologian, the presenter highlighted his stance that nothing can be definitively known about the eternal, immanent life of God, and the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only applicable in relation to the world, i.e., the economic Trinity. Following this, he addressed Schleiermacher’s viewpoint, which centers on the negation of articulating anything about God outside the revelation in Christ.
Pejaković then connected these perspectives to the triadology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, posing the question, “Which Soteriological Model Does Triadology Support?” He explained that for liberal theologians, the answer is none, whereas for Zizioulas, triadology underpins the Eucharistic model of salvation. Thus, he concluded, due to differing interpretations of triadology, soteriology is also understood distinctly in these theological frameworks.
In the third session, the second speaker, Professor Dr. Rade Kisić, focused on the topic “Self-Understanding of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Dialogue.” At the outset, he posed a central question: “How does Metropolitan John of Pergamon perceive the participation and role of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical dialogue?”
Prof. Kisić began his lecture by tracing the history of ecumenical dialogue and its fundamental assumptions in the early stages. He noted that, even after a century, the initial questions remain, with new ones emerging, such as whether the Orthodox Church should engage in ecumenical dialogue, its role in the movement, the implications of this participation for Orthodox teaching and practice, and the ecclesiological status of non-Christians involved in decades-long intensive dialogue.
He framed these inquiries around Metropolitan John of Pergamon's position as a prominent Orthodox figure in ecumenical discussions. Concluding his presentation, Prof. Kisić quoted the Metropolitan, who said: “We must constantly ask ourselves whether what unites or divides us is a matter of ecclesiology? Does it concern the destiny of the world that God has prepared for it in Christ? I am afraid that we often give the impression that we have no vision in our ecumenical endeavors, that we either argue about issues of the past or about things that concern the headlines of the day, without addressing the ultimate importance of these matters.”
In the third session's third presentation, PhD student Nebojša Stevanović addressed “The Path of the Theological-Ontological Setting of the Theology of Primacy in the Work of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas): The Question of the Reception of the Triadological Foundation of Primacy in Contemporary Orthodox Ecclesiology.” He commenced with a tribute to Metropolitan John Zizioulas:
“‘Dear Zizioulas’, ‘a worthy student of his teacher Florovsky,’ ‘Saint-Exupery of theology,’ a central figure in ecumenical theology, a ‘real theologian,’ one of the most original theologians and the most cited Orthodox theologian, whom the venerable Justin Ćelijski remarked as ‘having not met a deeper and more intelligent Orthodox theologian’—these are just a few of the descriptions of the Metropolitan's persona, reflecting the range and depth of his contributions and the open questions he raises in systematic theology.”
The focal point of Stevanović's presentation was the reception of Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ views on primacy within contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology. He began by outlining the Metropolitan’s basic triadological premises, culminating in the assertion that the personality of God the Father is the origin of the Holy Trinity's existence. Highlighting the coexistence of ternary order and koinonia as integral to personal triadology, Stevanović demonstrated how this model influences the understanding of primacy in the Church in Zizioulas’ work.
He emphasized that primacy and concord, as fundamental manifestations of the Trinitarian ecclesiological model, are crucial in the Metropolitan's theological corpus. Stevanović then explored how this approach to primacy theology is received in contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology, referencing a lecture by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (Alfeyev) at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York.
He concluded with a critical insight, underscoring the potential risks inherent in neglecting the Metropolitan’s model and triadological perspective in understanding the primacy in theology:
“In the absence of applying the Metropolitan's model and the triadological perspective to the theology of primacy, there is a persistent danger, as he himself warned, that the role of the first in the Church is perceived merely as a component of the Church's administrative structure, rooted in historical-sociological-political paradigms.”
The final presentation of the colloquium was delivered by PhD student Sanja Stevanović on “Theology of Church Singing in the Theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas.” She aimed to highlight the significance of the Metropolitan’s perspectives in this area of theology and began with:
“The experience of the genesis of the world also comes from listening to music, whose sounds unveil a personal presence. This thought is a paraphrase of one of the very few remarks the Blessed Metropolitan made about the art of music in his writings.”
Stevanović’s goal was to explore the role of church singing within the Metropolitan’s theological framework. She concluded her presentation by stating:
“Emulating Metropolitan John, who does not claim exclusive ownership of truth and thus leaves the realm of church singing open, we offer our insights for contemplation. We do so with full confidence in the traditional soundness of his thoughts, believing that a faithful and genuine comprehension of the relationship between love and church chanting will resonate not only among systematic theologians but also with all our fellow believers.”
After engaging and constructive discussions following each session, Protodeacon Professor Dr. Zlatko Matić gave the final address. Given its creation in response to the atmosphere and spirit of the colloquium, his main points could be summarized as follows.
“In his opening lecture, Bishop Ignatius highlighted the extensive range of topics addressed by Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon in his theological work. We are gratified to see that through these eleven presentations, his assertion has been substantiated. The authors have meticulously analyzed the Metropolitan's methodological foundations, delving into the hermeneutic implications of his entire theological framework. They have explored his perspectives on anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, Trinitarian theology, ecumenical theology, comparative theology, and even the theology of church singing. This has affirmed that the Metropolitan's body of work is a wellspring of inexhaustible knowledge, mirroring the depth and richness of his personality and the enlightening nature of his meetings and discussions.
In doing so, we have collectively validated the Metropolitan’s concept of systematic theology: the task of the systematic theologian is to elucidate what is implicit in the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers. This endeavor necessitates loyalty to these sacred texts and the Fathers, while also embracing questions that were not posed in their era. Our approach demonstrated a comprehensive and visionary understanding of both systematic theology and Orthodox theology at large.
This colloque would have merely been an insular exercise among a group of professors and their doctoral students had it not been for your presence. Your participation transformed it into an event of academic, educational, ecclesiastical, and pastoral significance. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to each and every one of you for making this possible.”
Nebojša Stevanović
