By Randall Smith.

But first note: TCT's Editor-in-Chief, Robert Royal, will appear tonight on 'EWTN Live' with Fr. Mitch Packwa for a freewheeling discussion about issues in the Church. Information about rebroadcasts is available by clicking here.

Now for today's column...

Augustine admits in Confessions that when he was young, he did not like the Scriptures; he found the language ugly and uninspiring. He preferred Cicero and Virgil. Worse yet, some things in the Scriptures caused him to think Christianity was ridiculous. Who would be so naïve as to think that God has a right hand? God doesn't have a body! What a bunch of rubes Christians must be.

It was not until he got older that he realized that the Scriptures made use of figures of speech, metaphors, analogies, and other poetic devices. Christians don't believe that God has a physical right hand; rather, this is an image suggesting the intimate union between the Father and the Son.

He had been laughing at Christians when he was the ignorant one whose pride had blinded him to the richness of Biblical language and imagery. "My inflated pride shunned their style," he writes, "nor could the sharpness of my wit pierce their inner meaning. Yet, truly, were they such as would develop in little ones; but I scorned to be a little one, and, swollen with pride, I looked upon myself as a great one."

It is not uncommon for people who pride themselves on their scientific sophistication to find the Church's manner of speaking, especially in the liturgy, bizarre, perhaps even childish, something acceptable only to unsophisticated people who believe whatever they're told, no matter how ridiculous.

I can imagine someone of this mindset asking: "Do you really think that there are choirs of angels 'soaring aloft upon their wings," singing 'Holy, Holy, Holy'?" As an adult convert, I can understand how skeptics from outside the Church might view this sort of language. It seems like something out of a children's book, like talking about Harry Potter's "sorting hat" or flying on a Hippogriff. Fine for children, but not for serious adults.

Since we live in what is largely a dull, unpoetic "information age," I understand why the Church's language might seem this way. But perhaps there are things that simply can't be said in ordinary speech of the sort one gets in the newspaper or the latest magazine article. Perhaps some things simply transcend our normal, everyday ways of speaking and require a different mode of discourse, one that communicates realities that transcend our usual ways of speaking and writing – as when Robert Frost says:

The land was ours before we were the land's.

She was our land more than a hundred years

Before we were her people.

Or when T. S. Eliot writes that,

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Or when the Psalmist proclaims:

The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

In verdant pastures he gives me repose;

beside restful waters he leads me;

he refreshes my soul.

If you don't "get" the many ways language signifies – if, for example, you don't "get" poetic speech, and it seems like a bunch of meaningless twaddle – then you probably won't "get" the language of the Scriptures and the liturgy. Much of it will likely seem as silly to you as it did to St. Augustine when he imagined that Christians thought God had a physical body.

I could say, the phrase "at the right hand of the Father" means that the Risen Christ is intimately united in the oneness of Being with the One from whom He, the second "person" of the Trinity, is eternally generated, being loved fully and eternally and loving fully and eternally in return. But that's not better.

That language might have a useful role to play to help us better understand the language with which the faith has been expressed to us. But after we have used the more "scholarly" words to explain those Biblical and liturgica...