Christian authoritarianism

One objection to Christianity is so direct, its expression is three words: "Christianity is authoritarian." The intended meaning of "authoritarian" is straightforward: the trampling of freedom by Christian authority. On the other hand, the intended meaning of "Christianity" could be referring to any number of entities, accused of authoritarianism:

• A Christian government
• A (or The) Christian church
• Christian individuals (parents?)
  
• Christian belief systems, inherently
  

As usual, it's not hard to appreciate the objection's perspective. Nobody likes always being ordered around; slavery's most basic indignity isn't mere pain and labor. Undoubtedly, Christianity can be a powerful tool for authoritarians, within and without the actual church, to effect control. But the general, unqualified charge of authoritarianism rings a tad hollow to Christians, for a few reasons.

• Philosophically and ethically, freedom is a trickier concept than its noncontroversial popularity suggests. Therefore, as the opposite of freedom, authoritarianism is a trickier concept than its noncontroversial unpopularity suggests. Someone saying he or she "supports freedom" is not distinctive or informative. Simply put, freedom is great, but which freedoms? Clearly, the freedoms to murder, destroy, and steal should be absolutely suppressed by governmental/societal authoritarians. The extent of other freedoms, and whether the suppression of those freedoms belongs in governmental hands, are vital questions in democracies. Similar discussions occur in churches and organizations of churches: what activities should members of the church never engage in, and what activities are left up to individual judgment? (Although heavy-handed church discipline, due to its tendency to backfire like all instances of negative reinforcement, is probably less effective than earnest, forgiving, and caring correction.) Even deeper, just between a Christian and his or her God, is the question of what areas of life have the freedom of being more or less morally neutral, as opposed to what areas of life are under God's intimate concern. (Actually, the strategy of apportioning bits of lifestyle to God and self is not how to please God; seek out God and his Spirit for true, real transformation, to reflect His holiness in all situations.) In any case, calling Christianity authoritarian is a simplification of the fact that all entities which regulate behavior contain tension between freedom and authoritarianism.
  
• This may be hard for the cynical to accept, but the parts of Christianity that curtail freedom aren't solely motivated by a fastidious craving for perfection. God does want His people to be as good as Him, yet their goodness will accomplish much more than failing to offend heavenly sensibilities. Good people improve the existence of other people. Good people improve the parts of the world they touch--and this is both an intentional and accidental effect of their actions and decisions. Lastly, people who do good may be happier than they otherwise would be, because evil is self-destructive sooner or later. The point is that (ideally!) when Christianity takes an authoritarian stance on some behavior, it's in order to preclude evil and evil's corresponding negative effects, neither on a whim nor out of an obsessive thirst for domination.
  
• Humility remains essential to Christianity. When Christians bow their heads to address the supreme God, the motion should be the outer "face" of the soul's reality. Faith "walks". Any church-goer can say that God is all-knowing and sacred, then live as he or she chooses, regardless. People of faith trust that God is all-knowing and sacred, then live as God directs, because being all-knowing and sacred are excellent qualifications for an authoritarian! If Christianity is authoritarian to its devotees, such "victims" of authoritarianism aren't coerced. They have as much freedom as ever, which they use in recognition of Someone infinitely greater than they.
  
• Christ refused to become part of the societal hierarchy of power, to the point of fleeing zealous crowds who wanted Him to do exactly that. He also refused to use His reign over both supernatural and natural to destroy and punish. Not because He was never angry and disappointed, as evidenced by the "temple clearing" and His many rebukes, to Pharisees and disciples alike, but because He chose to take the less authoritarian path. People who would follow in His footsteps should take note.