I reply to L. Philip Barnes' assessment of the contributions of Ninian Smart and phenomenology to religious education. My argument is that Barnes first misconceives and then underestimates Smart's legacy. I sketch Smart's relevance to some current issues in religious education, suggesting that his thought helps us to avoid potentially damaging polarisations (of language and concepts to experience, and of learning about religion to learning from religion). I conclude that Smart may have little to say about classroom practice, but should still be a reference point for any practitioner. (Contains 4 notes.)