My knowledge of the English Reformation is a little sketchy but I think Thomas Cromwell was something of a 'Mr Fix It' for an important stage in the Reformation.
++Rowan's recent response to TEC's GC decisions is exciting much comment, not all, shall we say, as complimentary as I myself make. But now +Tom Wright offers a Mr Fix It supportive interpretation, here at the ACI. It is a bit convoluted for my taste (and small brain). What do you think? It does not much excite Charles Raven of SPREAD, who draws this conclusion:
"That such an able and respected theologian [Wright] has to stretch both credulity and church polity so far is symptomatic of the inherent contradictions, increasingly difficult to suppress, in trying to be loyal to the historic Anglican faith and operate within the old wineskin of Lambeth orientated structures. As those contradictions become ever more obvious – as they will on this side of the Atlantic as well as in North America – it must be hoped that while the ‘two tracks’ of Global Anglicanism diverge, there will be grace extended between the ‘two tracks’ of Anglican evangelicalism so that they can converge. An Anglican Covenant which adopted the Jerusalem Declaration might be a good start."
This adoption would be only a beginning, however, of Anglicans getting to grips with a workable authority structure in the 21st century for global and local decision-making (and determining which is which). Charles Raven overlooks the sleeping dog issues such as Sydney's determination that deacons may preside at the eucharist as examples of matters not able to be sorted by the Jerusalem Declaration, nor by GAFCON structures.
Much as I admire the energy and the acumen from +Tom Wright through these days, we actually need something better able to fix the mess we appear to be in!