When I first became a member of the General Synod, the Open Synod Group was the group I joined first. I was delighted to find that there was a group of Synod members that avoided a party label and made a conscious effort to bring an open mind to the issues that we were asked to consider in the Synod. When I attended Open Synod Group meetings I found the members of the group extremely friendly, welcoming and, yes, open in their attitudes to the issues being discussed. I was invited to become a member of the committee and very quickly felt at home.

But it is precisely because I felt at home and with such congenial company that I began to feel at little uneasy. Members of the group are robust in their views and forthright in the way they express them. They do not come from the same churchmanship and their backgrounds and professions are wide and varied. So what's the problem?

Well, there are views strongly held in General Synod that are just not found in the Open Synod Group. We do not have those from the Catholic group – those who have traditional catholic views; we do not have any members, as far as I know, of Reform. We have those who would describe themselves as Evangelicals, but not Conservative Evangelicals. We tend to think the same way about the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. By and large we feel very comfortable in each others' company. There lies, I think, the danger.

How welcoming would we be to those whose views on some of the key issues facing the church were very different from ours? How willing would we be to have our comfort disturbed?

I know that this is a concern of some of our members and in particular of our chairman, Tim Hind. One of the most constructive things the Open Synod Group has done in recent years is to host meetings that give a platform for those with whom we may well not agree. I remember an excellent meeting where David Houlding and Christina Rees spoke in a debate on the ordination of women, and more recently we have been addressed by the Bishop of Beverly on women and the episcopate.

Those initiatives are most welcome and helpful. But when we come to a more personal level, then our task is more challenging. Are there any members of the General Synod that we would feel justified in excluding from our meetings because we found their views so objectionable? I would say, 'No there can't be. If we are the Open Synod Group that means that we are open to all members of the Synod, irrespective of their views on particular issues.'

It is not that we don't hold strong views ourselves – far from it. But we should particularly value the opportunity to listen and talk to people whose ideas we do not find congenial, so that we can better understand why they think as they do, and maybe so that they can see where we are coming from.

The Open Synod Group must be open but that means it must be very careful not to become cosy or comfortable. We are faithful members of the Church of England, but that does not mean that we are either meek or conformist. Being open is a much more demanding virtue than it at first sounds.

John Ashwin