Asbury Theological Seminary

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/syllabi/4213/thumbnail.jp

Gober, Robert (Steve)

Theology of John Wesley

Rekis, Jaclyn

Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian 
Philosophers 
Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 7 
4-1-2025 
Andrew Prevot, THE MYSTICISM OF ORDINARY LIFE: THEOLOGY, 
PHILOSOPHY, AND FEMINISM 
Jaclyn Rekis 
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, jrekis2@uwo.ca 
Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy 
Recommended Citation 
Rekis, Jaclyn (2025) "Andrew Prevot, THE MYSTICISM OF ORDINARY LIFE: THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND 
FEMINISM," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 41: Iss. 2, Article 
7. 
DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2025.41.2.7 
Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol41/iss2/7 
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and 
creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian 
Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 
FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY Vol. 41 No. 2 April 2025
doi: 10.37977/faithphil.2025.41.2.7
All rights reserved
pp.288–293
BOOK REVIEWS
The Mysticism of Ordinary Life: Theology, Philosophy, and Feminism, by 
Andrew Prevot. Oxford University Press, 2023. Pp. xvi + 270. $125.00 
(hardcover).
JACLYN REKIS, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Religion in secular societies today is not often associated with the op-
pressed or downtrodden. Or, if it is, this is not always a positive associa-
tion. To the truly skeptical, religion may be viewed as merely an opiate to 
reduce one’s suffering. Or, to the disheartened, religion may be thought of 
as a significant source of that suffering through, for instance, the oppres-
sion of women. Different still, religion, and religious ways of being, may 
simply be out of sight for many, receding into the background of public 
and, to some extent, private life. We no longer appear to live in a mystical 
world.
Andrew Prevot’s book, The Mysticism of Ordinary Life, is a welcome 
reminder that these observations are not the full story, or, really, not the 
story at all for many religious and spiritual persons. Religion—and here, 
 Christian and Catholic Mysticism—has been and is a deep part of the lives 
of the oppressed, revealing not a spell of comforting feelings, but a substan-
tive doctrine of who God is and how God reveals themselves to us. What 
is more, Prevot argues that God reveals themselves to us not always, or 
even primarily, from within the confines of a particular religious order, or 
through the writings of those who hold advanced theological degrees (2). 
Prevot, himself a professor of theology at Georgetown, outlines the con-
tours of a doctrine of mystical grace as it exists in ordinary contexts and 
ordinary lives, and especially in the everyday suffering experienced and 
theorized by women, women who are sometimes explicitly Christian but 
sometimes not.
The Mysticism of Ordinary Life is an ambitious work, owed most to its 
interdisciplinary approach. Prevot integrates philosophy, theology, mys-
ticism, French postmodernism, psychoanalysis, intersectional feminist 
thought, and contemporary Black studies. This breadth of literature is, 
I think, a strength and a weakness. While important for academics who 
BOOk Reviews 289
study mysticism, the book is, I suspect, likely to be rather inaccessible for 
those not already familiar with much of the Catholic and postmodern ver-
nacular used here. The importance of accessibility will be returned to later 
on, but my main criticism, also later on, will revolve around the credibility 
of mystical experiences.
A mysticism of ordinary life is defined and guided by Prevot’s favored 
Catholic doctrine, mysticism as a type of grace, and specifically, the grace 
of divine union. By grace, Prevot means “the loving activity of God ad 
extra,” or after creation, and as (at least partly) realized through Christ (5). 
This grace is experienced as “profound intimacy” or “experiential union” 
with and of God, and other human beings (5). While these experiences are 
manifest in unique ways (and are in-principle available to all persons, on 
Prevot’s view, according to God’s desire to be one with us (1)), Prevot’s 
focus is on the experiences of self-surrender and struggle to survive in a 
broken world.
By the mysticism of ordinary life, Prevot, although acknowledging a 
“messy web” of meanings (11), includes both what is considered “nor-
mal,” by which he means normative, and the “quotidian,” or everyday. 
The normal is meant to capture life as structured by social and moral 
norms, such as moral principles, as well as the spontaneous and unstruc-
tured norm-defying ways that we express ourselves as human beings (11). 
Further, Prevot also includes the “agony of the mundane” in the course of 
everyday life under “the ordinary” (13).
It is not completely clear how such different understandings of “the or-
dinary” are meant to exist as part of a single, unified definition. And these 
different understandings come in and out of focus throughout the book. 
However, Prevot attempts to find a union between them by overviewing, 
comparing, and criticizing, the lives and works of different mystics who 
navigate these meanings, or should navigate them. It is the portraits of 
these lives that ultimately structure the majority of the book. More spe-
cifically, the book is composed of three sections, covering three sets of 
mystics: German Twentieth Century theologians, French Postmodern phi-
losophers, and Latinx and Black intersectional feminists (I said the book 
was ambitious).
The first section spans the lives and works of Karl Rahner, Adrienne 
von Speyr, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In chapter one, Rahner is pre-
sented as the foundation for the major themes of the book. Rahner ex-
plicitly uses the phrase a “mysticism of ordinary life” (although mystical 
theology itself, Prevot notes, originated with the Syrian monk Dionysius) 
to emphasize uncreated grace, or “the uncreated being of God poured 
out in Love,” as the basis of this mysticism (36). That is, human beings 
should, on this view of grace, consider themselves “as in some sense al-
ready drawn into and animated by this union” with God in this life, rather 
than the next (34). And we experience this grace, according to Rahner, 
most saliently (on Prevot’s reading) through Christ, who shared in our 
being “vulnerable, isolated, fatigued, and mortal” in a “sinful world” (47). 
Faith and Philosophy290
Ultimately, Prevot’s argument here is that while Rahner is a cornerstone 
progenitor for this substantive understanding of grace in ordinary life, 
this theory is limited by its being largely neutral with respect to gender. 
Rahner also regularly omits female contemplatives in his work, despite 
acknowledging that women are capable of doing theology and experienc-
ing union with God (55).
Prevot turns, in chapter two, to the mystical theology shared by Adri-
enne von Speyr and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Unlike Rahner, Speyr and 
Balthasar’s theology “overflows with discussion of women saints” (77), as 
well as, of course, the insights of Adrienne herself, insights that Balthasar 
regularly acknowledges influenced virtually all of his work after 1940 (67). 
This theology, in contrast to Rahner’s aestheticism, is grounded in social 
life and community, exemplified in Speyr and Balthasar’s own creation of 
the secular institute for lay Christians, and in their commitment to caring 
for and being present with the poor (66, 77, 98–99).
But the relationship between Speyr and Balthasar adds a complicat-
ing wrinkle to their theology. Their relationship is viewed by scholars as 
both an inspiring “spiritual marriage” (67) and a hierarchical blending of 
intimacy and obedience, Balthasar acting as Speyr’s confessor and spiri-
tual guide. And this finds expression in their theology, problematic for its 
gender essentialism (among other issues), where women are seen as sub-
ordinate to men, and valued for their stereotypically ‘feminine’ traits (64; 
71). Prevot argues that we can nevertheless redeem the mysticism of these 
theologians by, in part, looking to their characters, particularly Speyr’s 
agency, leadership, and strength (69), as well as her admiration of these 
characteristics in other mystics, which to some extent unravels the gender 
essentialism Speyr and Balthasar seem to adhere to (77).
Part two of the book focuses on four French postmodern philosophers. 
Despite their ambivalent relationships with theology, and writing mainly 
for secular audiences, Prevot includes them in a mysticism of ordinary 
life because of their proclaimed “consistency” with Christianity, as well as 
their reflection on Christian mystical sources (104–105).
In chapter three, Prevot compares Michel Henry and Michael Certeau’s 
dissimilar perspectives on how a life can “border with the divine” (106). 
Henry exhibits a life of “immediate auto-affection,” whereas Certeau “ex-
tols alterity” (105). While valuable in their own ways, Prevot argues that 
both are problematic in that both bracket gender in the conditions of im-
manence and alterity (105). For instance, while Henry focuses on the value 
of suffering (as powerlessness) and joy (as a sign that one is alive) (118), 
in doing so he overlooks the histories and norms that cause suffering, his-
tories and norms that women often do not have a choice but to grapple 
with (120).
In chapter four, Prevot overviews the work of French feminist philos-
ophers Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva. Prevot emphasizes, as with all 
the figures he discusses, the most redeemable parts of their mysticism, 
particularly in their later works. Some instances of mysticism in ordinary 
BOOk Reviews 291
life covered are Irigaray’s idea of a Marion experience of jouissance and 
yogic breathing, and Kristeva’s focus on the “curative power” of writing 
(154, 172). Although more feminist than any of the figures considered thus 
far in the book, particularly in their exploration of a feminine mysticism 
and mystical feminism, Irigaray and Kristeva also reveal gender essential-
ist commitments in their works, overly positive depictions of suffering (for 
Kristeva) (140), and view the problems of race as second to gender (178, 167).
Part three of the book turns to an intersectionally rich feminist mysti-
cism. Chapter five explores the work of Gloria Anzaldúa and Ada María 
Isasi-Díaz. It is perhaps here that the meaning of ‘the quotidian’ is most 
powerfully depicted as the normalcy of suffering, where it is “structural, 
regular, and all too predictable . . . for poor women of color to suffer from 
a range of interconnected oppressions,” especially as produced under 
conquest and slavery (184). For instance, for Isasi-Díaz, mysticism is con-
stituted primarily by La Lucha (the struggle) and Lo Cotidiano (the ev-
eryday), where political struggles for liberation are always connected to 
micro-struggles in one’s inner life (194). Ultimately, such experiences of 
struggle, as for most of the mystics studied by Prevot, do not reveal per-
sons who have been abandoned by God, but the opposite. They reveal 
God’s intimate nearness. Survivors of even the most horrendous forms of 
oppression attest to God’s strength and love, and exude that love to others 
in similar circumstances (201).
Chapter six concludes the book with womanist accounts of mysticism, 
including some with a somewhat ambiguous relationship to Christian-
ity. Prevot primarily considers author Alice Walker, famed for her novel 
The Color Purple, and M. Shawn Copeland, a Catholic Theologian, as well 
as several Black women preachers. Through Copeland, Prevot considers 
specifically how Black women’s mystical experiences have responded to 
the construct that Blackness is a “negation, nonbeing, nothingness,” and 
always “other” (229 Prevot; Copeland, enfleshing Freedom, 9). For Prevot, 
this nothingness as alterity cannot be the only, or primary, way to the di-
vine, in part because the “the hells inflicted on such people are not by 
themselves divinizing” (230). Nor can one’s Blackness alone guarantee di-
vine union. Rather, it is what one does about one’s circumstances, and the 
positive relationship to one’s identity, that forges such a union of grace. 
Prevot thus considers Walker’s womanism, characterized primarily as a 
love of (Black) woman (but also humanity), as one way of overcoming 
nothingness through grace (223). Even though Walker has a complicated 
relationship with Christianity, Prevot shows that Walker’s fiction “invites 
a Christological theological reception” (246), as revealed in, for instance, 
the mystical Black women in her fiction, and her appreciation of nature 
(244) and women’s range of feelings.
To lay my cards on the table, my assessment of the Mysticism of Ordi-
nary Life comes from a Protestant and feminist perspective, with an edu-
cation in analytic philosophy. And to be rather straightforward, I think 
that to fully appreciate, or even understand, every idea in this book, the 
Faith and Philosophy292
reader should already be fairly well-versed in the language of postmodern 
philosophy and the Catholic doctrine of Grace. The book is dense, and I 
take it that such fluency will be the difference between the reader having 
a smooth(er) swim or a choppy ride in the wake of its complex details 
and wide-ranging overview of important theological and non-theological 
concepts.
Of course, not all books of or on theology will be accessible to all audi-
ences (even highly educated ones), and it is not clear that Prevot intends 
his book to be so. The book is probably best suited as a study for high level 
classes in theological mysticism, and will be excellent for that purpose. 
I nevertheless take there to be good and somewhat obvious reasons for an 
account of the mysticism of ordinary life to have a particular concern for, 
and comprehension among, ordinary (non-expert) readers. But this book 
is, unfortunately, not for ordinary people.
I now want to make a more substantive criticism. Prevot states that it is 
not simply in virtue of being oppressed, or in virtue of one’s identity, that 
one be in union with the divine, nor should we treat all mystical experi-
ences as credulous (5). For instance, in his last chapter discussing the mys-
ticism of Black women, Prevot writes that “[t]he proximity to the divine is 
not demonstrated by the mere fact of their Blackness or femaleness . . . but 
by their grace-based striving for holiness” (240). It is, again, such strivings, 
such intentions, that make the difference.
Be that as it may, one is left wondering just what is doing the work in 
explaining the credibility, and the truth claims, of those who purport to 
have mystical experiences of grace. Even though Prevot states that it is 
not the suffering itself or the identity of the individual doing the work, 
these things obviously play a significant role. And indeed, as many con-
temporary feminist theorists think, such as those working on epistemic 
injustice, our identities can provide us with privileged access, or a special 
sensitivity, to particular aspects of the world, and ourselves. These aspects 
can be the grounds for a credible testimony. One should wonder then: can 
this idea of credibility extend to mystical belief about who God is, and the 
experiences that inform these beliefs? Perhaps Prevot is suggesting here 
that it can, but it is unclear.
Here is another wrinkle. How do we evaluate the testimonies of those 
who claim to be in union with God while they also seem to misunderstand 
this union (even if partly so), at least as assessed against feminist thought? 
For instance, are Balthasar’s experiences of divine union to be treated as 
credible? Given the problematic gender essentializing that informs them, 
or is informed by them, he would appear to misunderstand not only who 
God is, but how God exists in union with us. It is unclear what to make of 
this. But because Prevot aims to appreciate the most feminist version of 
the mystics he overviews, perhaps what Prevot is showing is that God is 
present in the lives of even those scholars who are vulnerable to misun-
derstanding God and the way in which God seeks union with us. Theolo-
gians are not perfect. Perhaps, then, God’s grace exists even in the hearts 
BOOk Reviews 293
pp.293–297 FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY Vol. 41 No. 2 April 2025
doi: 10.37977/faithphil.2025.41.2.8
All rights reserved
of the oppressor, or those who are complicit in oppression, too, if only we 
should try and see it.
Now, maybe it is misguided to think about mystical experiences as be-
ing subject to ordinary standards of credibility at all. However, there is 
value in seeing mystics as, on the whole, generally credible according to 
the consistency of and similarity in their experiences, of love and strength 
and Grace, across cultures and conceptual frameworks. These experiences 
can act as evidence, if not for proof of the existence of God, at least not 
for the truly skeptical who may remain unmoved, but of who God is, as-
suming God does exist. What Prevot’s book reveals is that The Christian 
God wants to be with their creation, as evidenced not always or primar-
ily through robust arguments, but in the flesh and blood of human lives, 
transformed by love.
As a final thought, I wonder: if the idea of suffering is such an import-
ant avenue to mystical experience, what precise obligation do we have to 
alleviate such suffering in others? Might we be taking away potential op-
portunities for divine union by intervening? I think Prevot’s answer to this 
would be that the heart’s call to alleviate the suffering of others—which is 
perhaps itself still a type of grace—should always be prioritized, for while 
we cannot control others’ mystical experiences— these are graced from 
and of God, after all—we can try and control (in)justice in this world. To 
alleviate injustice then is to help fill the world with more grace, not less.
Naming God: Addressing the Divine in Philosophy, Theology, and scripture, by 
Janet Soskice. University of Cambridge Press, 2023. Pp. ix + 230. $39.99 
(hardcover), $29.99 (paperback).
JOSHUA D. SCHENDEL, Yellowstone Theological Institute
In Naming God, Janet Soskice questions the Modern division of “attri-
butes” of God into “metaphysical” on the one hand and “biblical” on the 
other. Still troublingly prevelant in current theological and philosophical 
literature, this division of attributes lies at the heart of the apparent oppo-
sition between the God of philosophy—often considered a “philosophical 
cuckoo in the biblical nest” (10)—and the God of the Bible. “What use in 
Christian life,” she asks from the perspective of those who side with the 
latter, “is one who is called ipsum esse subsistens or ‘Being itself’ whose at-
tributes are unfolded as simplicity, infinity, eternity, omnipresence and so 
on?” (11). Yet, according to Soskice, such a classification is too simplistic: 


Andrew Prevot, THE MYSTICISM OF ORDINARY LIFE: THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND FEMINISM

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/ecommonsatschapelservices/8665/thumbnail.jp

Tumblin, Thomas F.

Preparing stewards of the mysteries of God

Coleman, Robert E.

Master Plan of Evangelism-Czech Version

Railton, Nicholas M.

“We are all Jews here”: American Methodists and the People of Israel

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/firstfruitsheritagematerial/1236/thumbnail.jp

Asbury Theological Seminary

Not a member yet

Theology of John Wesley

Andrew Prevot, THE MYSTICISM OF ORDINARY LIFE: THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND FEMINISM

Preparing stewards of the mysteries of God

Master Plan of Evangelism-Czech Version

“We are all Jews here”: American Methodists and the People of Israel

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY: A Series of Lectures Delivered to the Ministerial Students at the Primitive Methodist College, Elmfield, York

Church History - Two

Counseling Theories and Techniques

Missional Formation: The Church in a Global Era

World Religions and Mission

14,300

34,201