My starting point is that exilic position laid down by Ignazio Silone in 1962 in the journal Encounter: Now I consider myself to be a Socialist without a party and a Christian without a church. I still feel bound to the ethics and idealism of each but I can no longer have any part of what the State has made of Socialism and the Church has made of Christianity. To be “without” is to recognize that once one was “within” but can no longer be so. It is to find oneself out in the world seeking a new language that looks back to what and where one was. But it is also to find oneself out in the world seeking a new language that looks out from what and where one was. This is why “without” is the language of exile, for the exile finds themselves in the world “without” what was, but never aligned with or adjusted to “what is”. The result of such a “without” location is that the exile finds themselves also on a boundary position here designated as “with/out” for they carry the boundary of exile within them, in their thought and language to the new place and as the new identity. For what is not seen in the textual designation of “without” is that liminal boundary of “with/out”. Therefore, Silone’s “without” is discussed as actually expressing the language of a theo/politics of with/out; that is, the recognition in modernity that theology and politics are in fact held together by the boundary language of exile.