Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… [for] those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

As a follower of Jesus and a believer that God created the world, I affirm that all people are equally created in God’s eyes. No person is better than another, or deserves more than another, and should have equal protection under the law. I further believe that ensuring as many freedoms as possible is required for justice to exist. Jesus indeed came to free those in captivity to oppression. There is no such thing as pure justice this side of the new creation, but that does not mean we shouldn’t seek it. Freedom is integral to justice; it must exist else there is no true justice.

So-called progressive Christians are mostly in support of the government-driven reforms of our health care industry. Viewing the State as a legitimate extension of the people (and of the Kingdom), they conflate words such as “cooperation” and “common good” with ideas like “mandate” and “coercion” to persuade the rest of us that living under the conditions of being told how to live is natural and legitimate. But mandates and legislation, by nature, are coercive. That is not to say all legislation is bad, nor is all forms of coercion inherently bad. Coercing somebody to not be harmful, or punishing somebody who was, is not an illegitimate form of coercion. The law (and those who enforce it) serves as a “referee” of sorts. No athlete believes they are being coerced into following the rules of the game. The problem is when the referees don’t like the rules and change them arbitrarily. It’s one thing to compel people to obey by presenting consequences for noncompliance. It’s quite another to coerce folks to behave according to one’s own ethics or desired social outcomes.

Some claim that “As long as individuals live in society, freedom is not absolute.  The common good puts limits on individual freedom.” Inherent in equal freedoms is its own limitation. If I had no limits to my freedom, then by definition you do have limits to yours. So naturally there are limitations to freedom. But a subjective phrase such as “common good” is difficult to achieve, because there are many things that could be perceived as “common good” to some, but be oppressive to others. To use “common good” as an excuse to limit one’s freedom is to essentially say, “My social goals and outcomes are more important than your goals and hoped-for outcomes in your life.” A conflict of goals emerges; the battle then must be on whose goals are more important. If we demand that individuals—most of whom we never met—are required to give up their rights, we are essentially telling them we matter more than they do. If we insists that individual rights are equal, and seek to protect the rights and freedom of the individual, we demand nothing from anybody.

Benevolent legislation such as health care mandates or laws that are designed to get people to behave in a certain way. It is disrespectful to make people give up their rights through mandates that appear helpful, and then ask, “What are you giving up, really?” People are not ants; they are not robots; they are not bits of software that can be programmed to do that which the “operating system” wants it to do. No, they are individuals with rational choice, free will, and ought to have the ability to pursue the goals they themselves have decided are best for them. You may disagree with their choices, but it is their choice.

It does not seem Christian to advocate for things that belong squarely in the realm of coercion. Paul wrote that the gospel is powerful, and it has the power to transform society in a way that fulfills God’s desire for God’s justice to reign on the earth. But going along with mandates and coercive legislation betrays a fundamental fear that the gospel really isn’t as powerful on its own, but needs the power of the sword to accomplish its ends. I wholeheartedly reject this notion.