My Acquaintance with Augustine and Aquinas

I had looked forward to this moment all semester and eagerly anticipated reading the words of two of the great doctors of the Church, hoping that their ideas might prove enlightening to me, a modern-day Christian reader.

I have to admit that I didn't exactly find what I had expected-- at least not immediately. However, a few of the passages appealed to me and gave me cause to ponder their significance.

St. Augustine makes a very interesting connection between the Trinity, the Word (logos-- Christ incarnate) and the words which humans use. Augustine writes that "there can be no work unless the word precedes," and he links this to the presence of the Word of God (by whom all things are made) and the existence of creatures. I interpret this to mean that the idea represented in language exists regardless of the existence of the word that describes it.

Augustine does not doubt the authority of the word to describe the preexisting idea. He calls the possibility of a disjunct or faulty connection between language and meaning a lie. This makes me believe that he is a complete literalist, since it appears that he doesn't allow for any sort of figurative language in this equation. After reading in the introduction about Derrida's interest in Augustine's work, I can see how this simplistic view of language would give the poststructuralists fits. Isn't poststructuralism and postmodernism in general amused by wordplay and the ability of language to undermine itself? I intend to read Derrida in order to get his perspective on this dilemma.

As much as I admire St. Augustine's role in the formation of orthodox Christianity, I can't say that I completely agree with all of his ventures into literary theory. Perhaps I should applaud him anyway because of his handicap of having lived in an age devoid of the following centuries' theories. Perhaps I'm being pretentious.

However, St. Thomas Aquinas' logical arguments concerning Scripture, metaphor, and multiple meanings better satisfied my expectations. Because I value poetry and the mystical, his ability to see the beauty of metaphor as a gift from God to be used for His glory resonated deep within my soul. Aquinas believes metaphors demonstrate truth about God and the world by veiling the actual essence of a thing in order to make it understood and appreciated by people. In my opinion, these thoughts resemble Platonic or Emersonian theory, except that they have been consecrated to God. I can then agree with C.S. Lewis in his assertion that even pagan philosophy possesses an element of truth. Furthermore, I see Aquinas' ideas as aligning with Jesus' example of parables. If God can partake in this activity, why can't we? After all, beneath this storytelling lies an enduring Truth.