The process thinkers seem to think that characterizing divine action as “lure” solves some problems for theology and science. But what does it solve? Most seem to think it solves the problem of supernaturalism without losing divine action. But does it? I don’t see how. After all an influence must “touch” that which is to be influenced. You don’t influence someone without talking to them or showing some action. But all types of influences that current science would accept are the result of physical interaction. Words interact with structures in the ear or eye which creates neuro-dynamic processes that end up in the brain and so on.

So the question for process thinkers from a scientific perspective (which seems to drive this issue) is how God can influence someone without somehow diddling in the physical world, just as supernaturalists suggest. Even if the diddling is described as “pulling” a quantum superposition (standard QM model) in some way or another towards some suggestion, that’s still a causal intervention isn’t it? After all if the influence wasn’t there, the processes would be different, i.e. unbiased from the outside. Process divine action just pushes the problem of divine action to some other level, but it is still an intervention. It seems to me that the only problem where “lure” might provide some relief is freedom. If divine action is only influential then freedom of the individual (the person or the quark(?)) is maintained. In the case of non-sentient individuals (atoms, molecules, etc.) they apparently have some level of freedom where they could, in principal, but probably wouldn’t resist God’s influence. In the case of sentient beings any “pull” of a superposition by God can be even more forcefully resisted. It would seem then that the process thinkers are really not that far off from the supernaturalists. Both posit some type of divine intervention. Both proclaim the freedom of the individual to resist God. The process thinker’s attempt just appears to be a slight-of-hand with the term “lure” as a solution to divine action. All they really do is make reality *more* free than the supernaturalists.

The problem with both lines of thinking (process and supernaturalism) is that they both are stuck in a classic theism that strikes a strong ontological distinction between this reality and God. Within this framework God’s divine action comes from the outside. It therefore must be some sort of intervention. If, however, a strong panentheistic framework is employed with an aspect monism, (i.e. differentiated or qualified monism) then divine action is not coming from the outside but is instead a seamless flow of internal activities. There is nothing intervening. Instead there is a complex, dynamic interplay of each aspect of God, the manifest reality we know and the unmanifest reality of God’s depth. Each aspect’s freedom is internal within the unity and differentiation of the many. I realize this can be hard to understand or picture, but every theology or metaphysic must have a hard problem. The trick in theology is to pick the spot wisely. I think the best place to put the hard problem is where it has always been in perennial thought, the unity and differentiation of the One and the many.