It is good to discover that Michael King, Gerard Leavey and I share more common ground than I had at first perceived based on my reading of their article. ^{Reference King and Leavey1} Perhaps a part of the problem was that I only saw the abstract after publication and that what I had interpreted as ambivalence towards spirituality in the main body of the article is now set in the context of the clear and positive statement regarding spirituality that the abstract provides.

However, it seems that we do have a different reading of Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, ^{Reference Taylor2} and also probably hold different views of exactly what spirituality is. To explore these differences in academic debate seems to me to be a healthy thing, and this is why I was pleased to accept an invitation from the Editor to write a commentary on King & Leavey's article. I would never wish to ‘control discourse about psychiatry and religion’ but I am glad to participate in a lively and critical debate about a subject that psychiatry has too long ignored and at times even denied.