Godbeat veteran Richard Ostling of the Associated Press -- he of this blog's WWROD tribute -- is best known for his hard-news, brass-tacks approach. You want clear, fair writing about complex stories? This is your man. But Ostling does do analysis pieces, too. Here is an example in which he sets out to do the impossible, as in explaining -- in about 666 words -- the four basic approaches to the Bible being used in the worldwide Anglican wars over sexuality.

And what, you ask, are those approaches? Ostling lists them this way -- dismissal, perplexity, renovation and traditionalism. The big two turn out to be "renovation" and "traditionalism." Here is the summary of two papers at the latest Anglican academic showdown (but you really need to see the essay to see the Bishop Spong section, etc.):

The two papers typified debates within many mainline Protestant groups.

The Episcopal Church's report compared full inclusiveness for gays with the New Testament church's opening to Gentiles. It cited Acts 10, where Peter receives a vision allowing nonkosher foods and then commends baptism for Gentile converts; and Acts 15, where a council sets policy toward Gentiles.

The traditionalist paper said that in Acts 15 the church eliminated Jewish strictures on diet and circumcision for Gentiles, "but there was to be continuity in the moral sphere," since the council upheld Jewish sexual morals by warning Gentiles against "unchastity."

The Episcopal report said ancient Jewish prohibitions in Leviticus were part of a "holiness code" written to sustain Israel's distinctiveness and national survival. It said the code "makes no distinction between ritual and moral regulations," implying the gay ban is as outmoded as, say, rules against blending textiles.

The traditionalists responded that while early Christianity eliminated ritual rules, Jewish teachings against "immoral behavior" remained in force. For instance, the Leviticus passage condemns incest. And New Testament verses endorse Jewish sexual standards.

And so forth. Next up, Romans 1:26-27.

I did have one question, however. Anglicanism maintains that it is a blending, a compromise, of both the ancient church (read Catholic and Orthodox) and the Protestant Reformation. When Ostling says that "traditionalists" looked to "early Christianity" for input on how to read these controversial Bible passages, does that mean they actual quoted the early Church Fathers? I assume someone there played the trump card of 2,000 years of unbroken Christian tradition on marriage and sex?

This is a minor, minor complaint, and it probably has more to do with the competing Anglican teams than with Ostling. As always, Ostling has jammed mucho info into this piece.