This may be a funny way to put it, but there was a great deal of racism in New Testament times. The most obvious is the racism of Jewish people against the people of Samaria. The Samaritans had originally been part of the Jewish nation, but when most of the latter were transported to Babylon a great many Jewish people were left behind in what became Samaria, located halfway between Jerusalem and Galilee. These folks mixed in with other people who came to Palestine during the Babylonian captivity, forming the mixed race called Samaritans.
As is clear from several New Testament passages, the Samaritans were hated by the Jews who had later returned from Babylon to restart their nation. The story of Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman is a concrete example. When Jewish people traveled back and forth, they actually sought to pass around Samaria. In John 4 Jesus told the story of the “Good Samaritan” to illustrate the depth of the Jews’ hatred of Samaritans. The Samaritan woman actually asked Jesus: “How is it that you a Jew would speak to me a Samaritan?” (John 4)
After Jesus’ death Paul, a devout Jew, became the leader of the new Christian group of converted Jews. In both his missionary travels and letters Paul taught the full acceptance of Gentile converts into the Christian community, which at the beginning was exclusively Jewish. This caused a great deal of tension within the Church. For example, in Acts 10 Peter embraces Cornelius a gentile Roman soldier into the Christian fold, thus stirring up a good deal of confusion.
Indeed, a small but strong unofficial group of early Christians, sometimes called “Judaizers”, followed Paul around on his early missionary journeys insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised. Paul devoted a great deal of energy and writing seeking to counteract this movement. For instance, the entire 3rd chapter of his letter to the Galatians is devoted to educate them on this point. He went on to proclaim that “In Christ there is no Jew or Greek.” In addition, Paul consistently applied this Christian inclusivism to his view of women as well.
Perhaps the most telling dynamic on this subject is between Paul and Peter. Even after he had accepted Cornelius as a Christian believer, when the Apostles were meeting in Antioch, Peter seems to have waffled about whether to break bread with his Gentile Christian brothers. Before they arrived, he broke bread with the Jewish Christian brothers, but after some of his Christian Jewish brothers arrived, he seems to have switched tables and separated himself from the mixed group. Indeed, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul references Peter’s ambivalent behavior and states that he called him out for being inconsistent on this issue. (Galatians 2:14)
A similar ambivalence on the part of certain believers is revealed in Paul’s letters with regard to the proper Christian attitude toward women and slaves. In New Testament times both women and slaves were held to be seriously unequal to their male and freeperson counterparts. In his letter to Philemon Paul seeks to encourage his friend to deal with his runaway slave as a “brother in Christ.” Also, somewhat more surprisingly, Paul’s letters make it abundantly clear that he saw his women converts as equal partners in the ministry of spreading the Gospel. In many of his letters Paul refers to the women working with him as his “co-workers in Christ” and as officers in the churches he had started. (Romans 16)
In the New Testament then, neither gender, nor social status, nor race can “separate us from the love of God”. All believers are together as one in Christ. So, racism can be seen to have been as important an issue in the New Testament times as it is today.

In the traditional, orthodox way of approaching the nature of divinity, God is defined as an all-wise, all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe. All down through Christian history various theologians have debated just how this view of God can be squared with notion of human responsibility in relation to God’s will. I will not take much time to trace the various ways this issue has been argued both by the likes of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, to name only the two most prominent theologians. The two perspectives, along with the logical dilemmas they generate should be familiar enough.
On the one side stand those who maintain that since God is perfect the divine will must be honored at all times and in all circumstances. John Calvin argued in this way. The difficulty here is that it becomes easy, if not necessary, to belittle the role played by human decisions in the scheme and development of human life. Or, to put it another way, it becomes difficult to avoid defining God as a cosmic puppeteer who only seems to be taking humans and their decisions seriously. Some have even gone so far as to affirm a kind of “double predestination” as part of God’s overall plan.
On the other side stand those who insist that if our human choices are not taken seriously then the whole of human life is a mere charade with everything simply following God’s plan from the outset. In the end, it is claimed, human choices must factor into the way God operates in the world and how things turn out. In one passage Arminius argued that in the story of the blind beggar receiving a gift from the rich man, the beggar surely could choose, as counter intuitive as it seems, to reject the rich man’s gift. To deny this is not only to denigrate human worth, but to do so is to deny, as well, the integrity of God’s gift itself.
There are those, of course, who simply back away from such issues in favor of the notion of “divine mystery.” They would claim that such questions are beyond the reach of our intellect and must be postponed until God reveals “all things” to us. Our intellects simply are not large enough to encompass such mysteries here on earth. This sounds pious enough, but leaves us with very little to say or think about how our choices factor into our relationship with God. It has a strong tendency to paralyze our daily lives and render them moot.
Instead of seeking to sort out all these familiar puzzles, I would prefer to focus on the Biblical passage that is most often cited as the pivot point of the view that God in one way or another controls the various events of history, causing “all things to work together for those who love God and are called according to God’s purpose.” (Romans 8:28). Instead of trying to provide a proof of what is sometimes called the notion of the “Openness of God”, or the “free will defense”, of the idea that there must be some sense in which God’s sovereignty is circumscribed or limited in relation to human choices, I shall offer what seems to me to be an obvious and reasonable solution of this dilemma.
Let us begin with the popular verse I just quoted from the eighth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, verse 28. My quotation of the verse above is taken from the all- too familiar King James translation and has provided deep comfort to believers down through the ages. The problem is, the King James translation of Paul’s words is both a long way from being accurate and downright misleading theologically. Nearly all the modern translations, such as The Revised Standard Version and New English Bible, render Paul’s statement more accurately from the Greek.
To begin with, the subject of the sentence is not “all things,” but rather it is God. Moreover the Greek verb synergeo used to describe God’s activity in world events literally means “cooperates with.” Thus the verse should read “God cooperates for good with those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” This means that God is “open” to, namely seeks and employs the activity of those who are committed to the divine purpose in the world. In fact, elsewhere we are said to be “God’s fellow workers.” (I Corinthians 3:9).
Bluntly put, the verse clearly claims that God “cooperates” with, indeed, relies upon human participation in the events and decisions of human life. Or, “God is open to” even seeks and needs the cooperation of humans to participate with divine activity in the world. Any way one puts it, this verse clearly implies that the activity of human believers not only can make a difference in the outcomes of human history, but that such activity is actually sought by God.
Put differently, this translation of this key verse affirms and seeks the
participation of those who are committed to seeking God’s will realized in the world. In short, God’s will is “open” to the input of believers, indeed needs such input in order to achieve the Divine purposes. This way of seeing the issue is clearly backed up by the developments of events all through both Hebrew and Christian scriptures, as well as by those of normal human history. It’s only when we allow ourselves to beguiled by pre-established definitions of the Divine nature as being “all-powerful” or totally “sovereign” that we become confused.
It should not go unnoticed that this way of construing the issues involved dove-tails nicely with the theological views of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. In my opinion his view is best described as that of “pansyntheism,” one in which the world and God inter-react with one another in order to maximize good in the world and minimize evil. Charles Hartshorne, who sought to develop Whitehead’s views, coined the term “panentheism” in order to stress that these two realities interact and influence each other.
I think the particle “syn” works better to accomplish this end. It is at the heart of such notions as “symbiotic”, “synthesis”, and “synergy” each of which entails the interaction between the entities involved. (I have adumbrated this view more thoroughly in my article in Process Studies Vol. 48.1, Fall-Winter 2019). Moreover, it lies at the heart of the idea that we are “co-laborers” with God in working out the Divine will. Indeed, not only is God “open” to receiving such co-operation, it is built into the very notion of God’s taking human faith seriously.