At its simplest, this book constitutes an entertaining account of an American scholar’s visit to Denmark (with side trips to Sweden) and his attempts to make sense of his experiences. As a sociologist of religion, Zuckermann is primarily interested in the religious lives of Scandinavian people, noting in particular their relative secularity. He is struck, moreover, by the combination of secularity and “wholesomeness” in Denmark – a country which is placed at, or near, the top in a wide range of league tables designed to measure societal health. Zuckermann presents this combination as counter evidence to the assumption of many of his compatriots: “that without religion, society is doomed” (p. 18).

For an American who finds his own society rather too religious for his liking, Denmark offers an attractive alternative. It is important, however, to look critically at the argument. Facts and figures are one thing; value judgements about them quite another. It is important, thirdly, to be cautious about any kind of causal sequence. Relativesecularity can exist alongside positive indicators of societal health without either one being the cause of the other.

First the facts and figures. In many ways I find the data the most refreshing aspect of Zuckermann’s text in that we are introduced to real people. The primary source for his claims can be found in his (almost) 150 interviews and conversations with a wide variety of Danish people, who are allowed to speak for themselves. They offer thoughtful and dignified responses to questions that deal with religion (belief, practice and institutions) and with existential questions (including the fear of death and the meaning of life). Much can be learned from their accounts.

For a European reviewer, a second question follows: why is Zuckermann so perplexed by what he finds? Why, in other words, does he find it strange that so few Danes subscribe to the central tenets of Christian belief, but remain paid-up members of the state church, and make regular (if occasional) use of its services to mark the turning points in their lives? The answer becomes clear very quickly: Zuckermann is looking at Denmark through an American lens. Religion in the United States comes in many shapes and sizes, but its core can be found in the free-standing voluntary congregation to which members commit for a variety of reasons and for short or long periods of time, depending on the specificity of their needs. A state church operates quite differently.

To grasp this point, it is necessary to understand the Danish, or North European, “package”. This involves not only the state church but the state itself, noting in particular its responsibilities for welfare. In my own work, I have used the term “vicarious religion” to capture the religious aspects of this situation. To operate vicariously means to do something “on behalf of” someone else: in much of Northern Europe a well-funded, highly professional church with relatively few active members operates on behalf of a much wider number of people who – implicitly at least – understand very well what is happening. Hence, among other things, their willingness to pay what is commonly known as church tax. It follows that the church is there at the point of need for the population as a whole and operates, just like its secular equivalent (the welfare state), as a public utility. Interestingly in many years lecturing across Europe and the United States, I have seldom met a European who does not grasp this idea, or an American who does.

In this way Zuckermann is a typical American. In other ways he is not. It is quite clear, for example, that from his point of view the relative secularity of Denmark is a “good” thing – much better in fact than the situation in the United States which is not only too religious but considerably less “healthy” in terms of its societal indicators. Such a comparison is seductive, but not entirely fair. More could be made, for example, of Nancy Ammerman’s “golden rule” Christians who exist all over America but do not fit the rather negative vignettes presented here. And more not only could, but should be made of a troubling episode in Denmark’s recent past: the provocative publication in Jyllands-Posten of the ill-advised cartoons of Muhammed.

This is mentioned only in passing in Zuckermann’s text, but the ensuing controversy engulfed Denmark and – if examined more closely – reveals a more negative dimension of the cultural Christianity that he finds so attractive. Indeed there is increasing evidence in Northern Europe as a whole that nominal rather than active Christians are opposed to immigration in the sense that they understand their religious affiliation in terms of national identity rather than a belief system. Immigrants, especially Muslims, are seen as a threat to this identity and are resented because of this. To be fair, the one interviewee who addresses the cartoon question is markedly more generous in his views and deplores the increasing xenophobia of Denmark.

What, finally, is the relationship between relative secularity, personal well-being and societal health? The answer is not only complex but contextually varied. The combinations that emerge in the United States are entirely different from those that exist in Northern Europe. Moreover neither is transferable to the other. Careful empirical analysis is necessary on both sides of the Atlantic in order to identify the positive features of each case – and the reasons for these. Only then can effective policy be made.