The “box” is the predefined boundaries Milbank to which Milbank is referring in this paraphrase from Eric (see his blog for the actual quote):

Eric’s Tasty Morsels of Thought – ‘Policing the Sublime’ through a false metanarrative
On a piece from Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory

What Milbank is saying here, I think, is that even though modern American sociology allows for a sublime (religions, belief in the divine, etc.) one can only be allowed into civic discourse with the pre-given whole of the social when one concedes to a certain meta-narrative. What this means is that even though there are many stories, or narratives, allowed within the modern liberal nation state, they will only be considered “legitimate” by the nation state as long as they interact with everybody else through participation in the metanarrative of the state, and that is one that is defined by “formal, economic terms.”

What this brings me back to, is the very Hauerwasian call that it is our job as Christians to be the Church. Our society, our politics, is our faith, and I don’t think we should allow another discourse outside of ourselves to prescribe not only who we are, but how we are to be. My aim in referencing Islam is only to acknowledge that it is one of the few large bodies of people that I can think of that currently embodies this pre-modern mindset, and it is ultimately, through the retrieval of Augustine and Aquinas (and other patristic figures) where Milbank wants to go in being the Church in an effort to not be anti-modern, but to save modernity through the works of mercy.

(Although I haven’t gotten to any of Milbank’s actual conclusions in this just yet, the works of mercy is where Pastor John Wright always points to as ways to be Christian. And, I think Bonhoeffer would say that if nothing else, these acts of obedience to Christ put ourselves in positions where faith is possible.)

This seems also to be at the heart of issue I having with Smith’s analysis of Wallis. I don’t see Wallis as being guilty of:

“conceding to a certain meta-narrative” , but working against that. I don’t think it shoud be considered a violation of theology to find some common concepts in order to communicate with the commons. I strongly sense that Wallis is bucking against the “conceding” and instead challenging the “framework” that has been set up for narrating in the public about religion (in fact, he’s done this for years, and I think it is a valuable clarification to be made. I also see him as doing quite a bit of “extending” of the comparatively limited concept of “justice” as a “naturally known philosophical concept”, and attempting to expand the “publicity” of a broadened sense of “justice” and , in this politicaql environment, “values”. As I have pointed out earlier, “values” is not a concept Wallis was stressing; it was made an issue by the religious right. It is BECAUSE this group is claiming to speak as the church that Wallis has taken to questioning this whole framing of the debate.

It seems that we have seen a shift in that whole meta-narrative to begin incorporating the themes of ultra-conservative church simplifications for political gain, and the acquisiton of power.

I hear Wallis saying just what Eric (via Hauerwas) says here: “I don’t think we should allow another discourse outside of ourselves to prescribe not only who we are, but how we are to be”

He says this in his protesting what he calls the “hijacking” of the faith. What is being hijacked is the public perception of the faith. Wallis knows that noone can have their faith “stolen” (unless by distortion and covert manipulation of the truth in order to “control” us) What is really hijacked is that public conversation, skewed as it has been by the oversimplificaitons of the Right, and the cynical usage of faith-based-issues by the White House. I would certainly call all of this a refusal by Wallis to allow “exclusion” of many deeply committed Christians and churches. Yes, these individuals and churches continue to practice their ministries and works and to pray and explore all of this, but I don’t think that the issue of having a voice is a desire we have becuase we’re beholden to modernity. We find that we are in many ways, but I can’t see that it is in this matter where it is happening.

Now I’m wondering here, as I make this supposed connection between what Milbank is saying, and also drawing from Eric’s paraphrase, as to whether or not I have either Eric OR Milbank right on this one. It’s a connection I made when reading Eric’s post.

Otherwise, I’ll have to go see if the Gorillaz CD is rad or not. (see the end of Eric’s post)