Then there’s the time Jesus healed the Roman centurion’s servant and praised the centurion for his faith. The author of the gospel account used language most people of the time would have taken to mean that the centurion was in a sexual relationship with his servant or slave. That Jesus chose not to comment on that should be significant to people. He obviously found the centurion’s love and faith worth more comment than any sexual relationship the two might have been in.

White Evangelical Christians go on and on denying that the centurion’s relationship was sexual, but the point of the matter is that the author of the story used language most people would have presumed meant sexual. And for hundreds of years of early Christian tradition, nobody objected.

Worth thinking about.