I CANNOT help feeling a tremor of anxious delight at Kemi Badenoch’s election last weekend as leader of the Conservative Party. This formidably well-read, highly intelligent, and argumentative individual is likely to send new sparks into our political life. She is also likely to challenge the ideological homogeneity that has crept into our institutions — the Civil Service, the media, universities — in the name of inclusivity and diversity.

This homogeneity manifests as a collective and sometimes barely conscious buy-in to views inspired, ultimately, by a Marxist analysis of power, which many believe has been detrimental to free speech and inquiry. If Ms Badenoch is able to keep her temper (and it is a big “if”), she may be able to bring us back to a culture in which reasoned argument prevails over the lazy assumption that all right-thinking people must think the same way.

The Church of England is slightly less affected by this ideological sameness than other institutions. But there are dangers when so many of our leaders automatically think soft Left, so that we know their views on immigration, or the NHS, or the economy before they even speak.

For this reason, I am nervous about current attempts to establish new governance arrangements intended to streamline and simplify the Church’s pastoral mission. Proposed changes are currently being discussed in revision committee, having so far managed to avoid any real scrutiny from the General Synod.

The title for the new arrangements, “Church of England National Services”, does not inspire much hope. We can expect more control from the centre, more pushing of ideological consensus, along with more diversity officers, environmental advisers, and more stringent safeguarding measures, alongside the negative expectation that anyone in authority might actually resign over a safeguarding failure.

Add in streamlined processes for closing churches that do not conform to the demand for growth in numbers and money, and there will be little room left for the various awkward squads. Think of those (and they are, of course, not the same people) who disagree with women priests, or believe in serious theology, or object to same-sex marriage, or even those (the majority of regular churchgoers) who might quite often vote Conservative.

The C of E has, traditionally, found ways of decentralising power. This has allowed its differing constituencies to be heard, at the price of a precious but fragile ambiguity. But the centralising instinct can turn oppressive, suppressing minorities while loudly claiming to represent them.

What those who manage our institutions, including the C of E, fail to appreciate is that the greatest danger to our human flourishing is groupthink. This always veers towards totalitarianism, as wrong thinking is simply cancelled. We all need to learn again the lessons of our history, which is that robust argument safeguards freedom. The Creator Spirit hovers over the chaos, not over the carefully crafted consensus.