The inclusive language issue is an important element of Christian reflection on Church involvement for gender equality. The article focuses on American Protestant communities and their attitude towards inclusive (non-exclusive and non-discriminatory) language, although tendencies to make the Church’s language more inclusive are also present in some Catholic circles. The article begins with an attempt to define the Christian understanding of inclusive language. It then presents the positions of North American Protestant communities towards this kind of religious language. It also shows the difficulties related to this issue, using the example of the inclusive baptismal formula.

Although the apotropaic qualities of tefillin have been generally recognised, there is one additional aspect that needs some further attention. The main purpose of this paper is therefore to present the connection between tefillin and Deuteronomy 28:10 that is drawn in the early Rabbinic literature. The said verse reads: “and all the nations of the land will see that the name of Yahveh is called upon you and will be afraid of you” and in itself bears the meaning of distinction, provision and protection. Yet, despite this verse’s interpretative potential, it is referred to just eleven times in the scope of both Talmuds and Midrash R. Seven of these references are clustered in the Babylonian Talmud: one (Berakhot 56a) interprets the passage as a metaphor of fame, whereas the remaining six (Berakhot 6a, 57a; Megillah 16b; Sotah 17a; Menahot 35b; Hullin 89a) explicitly state that the words “the name of Yahveh is called upon you” refer to head-tefillin. Meanwhile, the other four mentions (Exodus R. 15:6, 17; Deuteronomy R. 1:25; JT Berakhot 5:1 37b–38a) portray Israel as an earthly representative of Yahveh respected and feared by the heathens, despite the military supremacy of the latter. This indirect connection between tefillin and the idea of godly provision is supported by BT Menahot 36b and Mekhilta de-rabbi Ishmael to Exodus 12:23, 14:29, which explain the power of tefillin as stemming from the sacred names contained therein. This explanation fits the broader context of the apotropaic power of divine appellations.

The article considers the religious nature of the creative life of Nikolai Gogol (1809–1852) from a philosophical point of view. The writer’s creative life is understood as a struggle (bodily and spiritual) between God and the world, life and death. This struggle builds a kind of stage on which the writer’s life unfolds. In addition, the article takes up the perception and understanding of reality as “banality” (Rus. pošlost’), the demonism and atheism that are connected with it, the religious function of art, and the ways of seeking salvation (at various levels of experience and under different guises: the salvation of the world, salvation outside the world, and the salvation of oneself). Finally, the problem of religious alienation is considered, seen through the prism of the life and creative experience of Gogol.

The Council of Trent defined what the Eucharistic conversion is, and classified some liturgical questions concerning the order of Holy Mass and its sacrificial nature. Regarding this, groups of traditionalist Catholics claim that such definitions must be treated as a perfect, crowning, and unalterable way of orthodoxy. Nonetheless, an in-depth analysis shows that the Tridentine doctrine and discipline are far more “open” than “hermetically sealed”. The Eucharistic Tridentine terminology, however, is predominantly symbolical, that is characteristic of communication in religion, but not only abstract or strictly metaphysical. Furthermore, the disciplinary research solutions are rather historical and apologetic than universal or unchangeable. In consequence, the article proves that a hermeneutical approach is essential in analysis of Christian tradition and doctrine.