Unitarian Universalist Congregations as Epistemic Bubbles
The Unspoken Orthodoxy in Supposedly Non-Creedal Congregations
Anyone who knows me knows how much I value viewpoint diversity, critical thinking, and understanding the many competing perspectives on topics. They also know I detest echo chambers and groupthink. These positions are not just intellectual values. They are moral and civic responsibilities, especially in communities that claim to embrace openness.
I was originally drawn to Unitarian Universalism (UU) for its promise of pluralism and free inquiry. However, in practice, many congregations, including the one I attend, have drifted into quiet orthodoxy. On social and political issues, one viewpoint is presented to congregants, while others are simply not given.
Viewpoint Diversity? Not Really
Though theologically diverse, UU congregations tend to be culturally and politically monolithic. Most congregants share a similar leftist worldview.
Because most fellow congregants and leaders share the same mindset, the worldview is rarely questioned in their congregations and often treated as the only morally acceptable one. Rather than fostering pluralism, many congregations have become epistemic bubbles: spaces where viewpoint diversity is not even presented to its members. This undermines UU principles and leaves members uninformed.
There is something deeply wrong and hypocritical in a liberal religion when a church’s or congregation’s moral stance depends on keeping its members ignorant. I am continually struck by how many people form strong opinions on complex issues without knowing or even wanting to know the countering arguments. That mindset baffles me. Being ignorant of alternative perspectives is not a virtue.
Censorship and Dogmatism in the National Church
In recent years, the national UU church has actively promoted ideological conformity under the banner of progressive values. It has explicitly stated it will not publish diverse viewpoints, especially those that challenge national church orthodoxy.
After witnessing censorship of principled dissent at the 2025 General Assembly, William Jordan, a retired law professor and longtime UU in Ohio, wrote:
“This censorship would be unacceptable at any time, but it is utterly intolerable as we fight censorship from the fascist regime in Washington D.C. We UUs must stand for free expression and exchange of competing views above all else.”
Though congregations are officially autonomous, many, including the one I attend, function as franchises of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) in Boston. They routinely echo UUA positions without question. On nearly every political or social issue, the progressive narrative from the UUA is presented as the default, while alternative perspectives are ignored. This silence sends a clear signal: those other views aren't just seen as incorrect; they’re treated as not even worth hearing.
One Example: Gender Issues
Gender identity is one of the clearest examples. It is a sensitive and complex issue involving competing values and perspectives, including those from transgender activists, feminists, medical professionals, and concerned parents.
The national church presents the progressive position as church dogma. And in many congregations, only the progressive position is presented. Other perspectives, including those of lifelong leftists, gays, and feminists, are excluded or stigmatized.
Troubled by this lack of information at the congregation I attend, I shared with the minister and congregants n a post I wrote titled Understanding the Gender Debate. It outlined four good-faith competing perspectives without endorsing any. A former congregant, who gave up his membership in large part due to the national church’s illiberal drift and what he saw as the congregational leadership’s continual unwillingness to address it, responded:
“A much-needed synthesis which credibly represents these perspectives without a hint of ‘taking a side.’ I think it’s the most impressive piece of writing I’ve seen from you. A broader audience would greatly benefit from its wider distribution.”
I replied:
“I never understand how, in a supposedly liberal congregation full of self proclaimed ‘informed voters,’ the congregational leadership emphasizes a topic (And, obviously, trans and non-binary gender is a big topic at Westside and UU), but congregants are not given such simple multi-sided information, and it takes a non-member to provide the information. I will bet many congreants don't know those are the common arguments on this topic.
I believe that there is an essential timidity in leadership, that, for some, giving different sides is seen as potentially ‘controversial.’ Of course, you and I would call it being informed.”
He answered:
“Indeed.”
The same pattern appeared with the Israel-Gaza war. Congregants were repeatedly forwarded only one-sided, anti-Israel forums from the national church. Even when requested, alternative views were not provided to congregants.
Epistemic Bubbles and Cultural Blindness
This selective framing turns UU congregations into epistemic bubbles. Many UUs do not even realize they are being shielded from serious, widely held perspectives, including those from other leftists and UUs.
The result is intellectual shallowness and a distorted moral self-confidence. People in a community of like-thinkers come to believe their views are the only moral ones. And because UU congregations are dominated by a specific cultural class, namely white, college-educated, urban leftists, they regularly fail to understand why working-class people and racial and ethnic minorities have no interest in joining their congregations. Congregations speak of inclusion but practice exclusion through worldview conformity.
A Quiet Orthodoxy Has Emerged
Though UU congregations claim to be non-creedal, the national church and many congregations, including the one I attend, now operate under an unspoken creed. Progressive political frameworks are not presented to congregants as one moral approach among many. They are the only ones presented to members.
This is not liberal religion. It is religiously packaged political training.
A Call for Honest Pluralism
There is still time to change course. A liberal congregation must offer its members a range of perspectives and information on important issues. In a church that claims to value free inquiry, diversity, and open-mindedness, it is a disservice to congregants to present only one narrative.
Without intentionally providing its members with a diversity of views, Unitarian Universalism and many congregations are becoming just another closed and close-minded church.
Really good post. Humans do like being in insulated, safe tribes.
“Quiet orthodoxy.” I wonder if it could be called a “comfortable orthodoxy.” That is how I experienced it for 12 years. I was among my people, which is no small thing in an age when they are hard to find!
I was in “one-off” discussion groups: we’d discuss a topic for a meeting and move on to another one next time. We never went deeper. No risk of drowning. I was on service committees, doing good work for other members. I was invited to join the social justice training program, and that's when I discovered that there was an orthodoxy that I had not been aware of and I started asking questions. I slowly became aware that my questions tagged me as problematic, and people in my subgroup began telling me that my questions and comments were making them uncomfortable. The format of the training did not allow for exploring the discomfort, so the orthodoxy was safely intact.
I like the term “comfortable orthodoxy” because it captures the subtlety of how easy it is to fall under its influence. I count myself as a sometime victim. In my search for community, one thing I highly value is comfort within the community.
So how do we have both, heterodoxy and community? The social justice training, in my judgment, was teaching a point of view instead of creating opportunity for dialogue. (I might have missed that intention at the start.) But if dialogue is the goal, a vision statement for the program might have gone like this: “We value truth-seeking because it leads to growth, and we've learned that communities, like individuals, either grow or stagnate. We choose growth, knowing that it is the result of both pain and aspiration, which our community will support.”