The following is a letter I wrote to the Board of Trustees at the UU congregation I attend in Seattle:

“Hi Board members,

The below letter to the minister expresses a longstanding complaint of mine about Westside, with the issue highlighted in a casual conversation last week. I told a longtime and well-known congregant, ‘The church has become too narrow for me.’ He replied, ‘I agree. I’ve written and rewritten my resignation letter three times.’ He explained that he wanted to belong to a liberal religion, not a progressive politics bubble. I also believe that a big contributing reason for numerous longtime members quitting Westside in recent years was they felt UU and Westside had moved away from its liberal religion principles.

Hi (Minister),

Obviously, I’m for UU and Westside as classically liberal, platforming (through sermons, classes, literature, information, etc.) a diversity of perspectives and philosophies, and my complaint is that Westside doesn’t currently do this and hasn’t for recent years. I also argue that the platforming of a diversity of views and perspectives would reflect the diversity of views and perspectives, along with the curiosity and willingness to learn about new ideas, of Westside members. It’s not enough to say, ‘Westside members have a variety of viewpoints, and you can talk about them amongst yourselves during coffee hour.’ To be a liberal church, viewpoint diversity has to be platformed.

My question is: What is your view on what should be platformed at Westside? Are you for a variety of ‘liberal religion’ views and perspectives being platformed (classes, sermons, literature, enews information, etc.), or are you for Westside allowing a diversity of viewpoints amongst members but platforming and promoting only what I would describe as a progressive politics viewpoint and agenda?

Thanks,

David”

.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) has long promoted itself as a classically liberal, pluralistic, and non-creedal church, priding itself on fostering diverse perspectives and open dialogue. Yet, like all human institutions, UU congregations are vulnerable to social psychology that undermines these ideals. Echo chambers, peer pressure, and power structures often suppress heterodoxy and dissent. Even a movement rooted in free thinking and individuality can devolve into groupthink.

Unlike traditional organized religions, which often enforce conformity through explicit dogma, UU congregations often suppress dissent more subtly—through selective messaging and social dynamics.

Related reading:

What is Groupthink?

.

From open-minded spaces to partisan hubs: A shift in many UU congregations

Many Unitarian Universalist congregations have shifted from being inclusive spaces for diverse perspectives to becoming partisan hubs dominated by progressive identity politics. Instead of fostering openness, these congregations, directly or indirectly, impose a top-down singular ideological vision, sidelining the intellectual and political diversity and liberal values they claim to uphold.

For instance, my congregation has branded itself as a magnet and safe space for political progressives. It telegraphs this by displaying progressive symbols like Progressive Pride and Black Lives Matter banners, reciting land acknowledgments at the start of every service and board meeting, and using the in-vogue progressive jargon like “Latinx,” “decolonize,” and “BIPOC” in its publications and communications.

Trying to attract new members, its promotional booth at the annual neighborhood summer fest highlighted the BLM and Progressive Pride Flag symbols but barely if at all mentioned UU’s values of diversity of thought, freedom of belief and expression.

I support the congregation welcoming people of all races, ethnicities, genders, disabilities, and other identities (I am Sephardic Jewish and autistic). However, while UU’s advocacy for LGBT inclusion made it rare decades ago, this welcomeness has since become mainstream across many organizations, including many Christian congregations. Here in leftist Seattle, displaying a Progressive Pride or BLM flag makes a UU congregation a dime a dozen.

What sets a UU congregation apart—and what has the potential to attract a wide range of people—is its traditional commitment to intellectual and religious diversity, and freedom of thought. Downplaying these characteristics is a big mistake, undermining what makes UU different from other churches.

Related reading:

What Unitarian Universalism Loses as it Becomes Politically Narrow

.

The irony of promoting a political ideology that excludes rather than attracts most minorities

The progressive politics embraced by many Unitarian Universalist congregations—led largely by economically and educationally privileged whites— separates it from many communities it aims to include. Despite a professed commitment to racial and ethnic understanding and multiculturalism, these congregations typically remain predominantly white and educated middle-class bubbles.

The 2024 official survey of congregations reported that 91-95% of UU members and non-member friends, and 94% of UU religious professionals, are white, and the percentage of racial minority members has dropped in the last decade and a half.

To put it simply, the current UU brand of progressive politics does not align with the views of most racial and ethnic minorities in this country. Instead, it draws primarily white progressives, further entrenching the homogeneity.

It should surprise no one to learn that since my congregation adopted the UUA’s “anti-racism, anti-oppression” agenda (Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, White Supremacy Teach–In, “decentering whiteness,” Tema Okun’s “Traits of White Supremacy Culture,” etc.), the white majority congregation has grown only whiter, with most new visitors and members being white progressives.

One former UU remarked, “I left Catholicism for UU, only to find it more narrow-minded and out of touch with the communities it claims to support.”

Related reading:

The Consequences of Ignorance and False Assumptions in Activism

.

Controlling information and sidelining alternative viewpoints

UU congregations often manage dissent by controlling the flow of information and platforming only certain approved perspectives. This can be overt, with some congregations openly squashing dissent and punishing dissenters. However, more often it manifests in what is emphasized and what is excluded.

At the congregation I attend, the messaging, sermons, and literature present it as a franchise of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) in Boston. The weekly congregational newsletter consistently promotes UUA programs, groups, and political perspectives, without including alternative viewpoints or programs. Guest speakers who challenge the UUA’s prevailing views are noticeably absent. The newsletter offered links only to UUA-sponsored one-sided anti-Zionist forums on the Israel-Gaza conflict, despite raised concerns that this imbalance was a disservice to congregants and would alienate many Jews.

The congregation’s leadership recognizes the existence of a diversity of views among the congregants and encourages congregants to listen to and consider the different viewpoints. This is commendable but not enough. As I mentioned in the letter to the minister, diversity of thought should not only be tolerated—it should be showcased.

The result is that, for all practical purposes, the congregation has a top-down orthodoxy. The powers that be allow alternative views but organizationally marginalize and isolate them. This defies UU’s liberal traditions and helps explain why so many believers in independent thinking left the congregation and UU.

.

Group dynamics

In many UU congregations, particularly as membership declines, many leaders prioritize community harmony over fostering a diversity of viewpoints, perceiving dissent as potentially disruptive. Members who express heterodox opinions may face ostracism. Emotional appeals, such as warnings about “triggering” others, can infantilize congregants, implying they are incapable of engaging with different ideas. Fear of conflict creates a culture of timidity. In the name of community peace and fearful of past disagreements, one board member at my congregation suggested that those who do not support the UUA should not remain members.

This climate discourages congregations from providing diverse and challenging sermons and programs, undermining the intellectual and spiritual rigor that liberal religion should embody. The increasing narrowness of political and ideological offerings, including the marginalization of alternative views, insulates congregations in ideological bubbles. This poses a serious threat to the UU movement, closing minds, driving out religious liberals and independent thinkers, and distancing many congregations from broader society, including most minorities.

.

Fixing the problems

To restore its liberal practices, the national Unitarian Universalist church and congregations must confront key challenges:

• Platform Diverse Views: Incorporate a wider variety of perspectives and ideas in sermons, educational programs, and publications.

• Foster Open Dialogue: Establish spaces where differing opinions are respected, and constructive debate thrives.

• Counter Groupthink: Encourage critical thinking including questioning prevailing narratives and assumptions. Teach members about the danger of groupthink and echo chambers, and the importance to organizations of viewpoint diversity.

• Treat Congregants as Adults: Trust congregants with the complexity of meaningful discussions and their ability to consider new and challenging ideas.

.