A recent Bulletin editorial called for a more active role of scholars of religion as engaged, public intellectuals. In the same issue, Warren G. Frisina argues that though we need not all “become like Martin Marty … our fear of popularization, and the ‘pollution’ that attends it, needs to be tempered with an awareness that there can be no more ultimate justification for continuing to support our work than that it is a resource for public discourse about religion.” “It would be nicer,” Frisina concludes, “if we had a few more people within our field with the talent and the energy to communicate what we've learned to a broader audience” (1997: 33). I belong to this “filthy few,” not on the American scene, though, but on the Danish; if not with great talent, then at least with some energy. In spite of the differences between the Danish and American situations, a perspective from over here may be of interest to some of the readers of the Bulletin. For, despite what newspapers and the news on TV suggest, Marty's recent book (1997), Russell McCutcheon's Manufacturing Religion (1997b) as well as his “A Default of Critical Intelligence? The Scholar of Religion as Public Intellectual” (1997a), suggest that the differences are not so big as to prevent comparisons.