In the nineteen sixties and seventies the theological and philosophical atmosphere in the Netherlands was explicitly ‘continental.’ Huib Hubbeling in Groningen, Wim de Pater in Leuven and myself in Utrecht were the exceptions in doing philosophy of religion in a broadly Anglo-Saxon ‘analytical’ way. Unlike most of our colleagues, for whom their way of doing things was the obvious thing to do, we were forced to give an account of our deviant approach to philosophy of religion. I found such methodological reflection very valuable since it can only improve the quality of one’s work. Doing philosophy intuitively rather than critically inevitably has an adverse effect on your performance as a philosopher or theologian.