The thesis here is that theistic religions are preposterous relative to modernity. That's the "box" in question. You can call that box "natural man" thinking, thus presupposing much that comes across as outlandish and preposterous from the modern (scientific, philosophic, capitalistic, democratic, individualistic, secular) framework.

And you can bring with you your Christian box or perspective. Then we can have a battle of the boxes. Or we could ask which box has more holes in it, making it more objective and less parochial. I think the modernist's framework is much more self-effacing and humble, as it were, than the fundamentalist's or the zealous, literalistic, "born-again" theist's.

Modernism leads to postmodernism, after all, to the incredulity towards all metanarratives, including those of modernity. That's why half of my writings criticize modernity even though I acknowledge that I live in a modern society (in one defined largely by the relatively recent revolutions of the so-called modern age, from the Protestant Reformation to the Scientific, Industrial, and French revolutions).