The emergence of sub-narratives is not the source of the trouble for meta-narratives.  Rather, the legitimacy of meta-narratives have come into question in the present condition.  Consequently, many subnarratives have given voice to complaints that have historically been active, but silenced.

Anthropologists, like Clifford Geertz, say the legitimacy of western invented meta-narratives have come into question especially since decolonization.  Brown people were no longer subject to whites, but had a national voices of their own that were distinct from their white masters imported stories.  

Philosophers like Francise Lyotard tie the decline of western metanarratives to the technological conditions that support them.  Computers and the Internet not only give voice to individuals from around the world, but bring transnational communities of people together in ways never before possible.  

Meta-narratives are having trouble in the present because conditions in which they once thrived have changed.  Changed conditions give rise to new social, political, economic and theological arrangements.  Big stories that dominated over little stories are now giving way to many struggling small stories that trying so desperately to define the situation.

In many ways, we agree that sub-narratives are "no longer willing" to be bullied.  They very much "want their story to be THE story, unchallenged and unbullied by any meta-narrative."  And they have the technological capacity to do it, too. 

One key difference between us, however, centers on this claim.  You say that "truth" is "defined as that which is consistent with reality."  How would you know that truth is consistent with reality?  Couldn’t ultimate truth be in a story, in the word made flesh?  

Either way, I don’t think that we can know the answer to those questions in any sort of empirical, testable way, which we might believe to be "objective."  We walk by faith and know God through revelation, I would say.  

In short, the words "meta-narrative" and "narrative" are best seen as analytical tools that help us make sense of the blur of life before us.  Don’t confuse them for some objective reality that you can firmly, certainly, and securely grasp.