We would like to thank Peter Connolly (Religion, 31 [2001], pp. 307–9) for reviewing our book Religion and Psychology: Mapping the Terrain (London, Routledge, 2001) and for raising important questions about both the book and the nature of the field of religion and psychological studies. While Connolly is gracious in acknowledging that our volume is ambitious and worth buying and contains much of value, he is concerned about the breadth and inclusivity of our project. In his view ‘the notion of a broad field’ of religion and psychological studies is ‘misguided’: our ‘inclusive agenda should be challenged’ (p. 308). Connolly’s concern is worth addressing, for surely he is not alone in his discomfort about how to map the field