Bizarre Theological Rift: Why Some MAGA Christians Are Now Branding Empathy as 'Toxic' and 'Sinful'

American conservative Christians aligned with the MAGA movement are increasingly branding human empathy as a sin by adopting a rigid ethical framework known as 'vertical morality'. The theological shift, highlighted recently by former fundamentalists and social media activists across the United States, has been cited by critics as one explanation for the apparent contradiction between biblical teachings of compassion and modern right-wing policies.

For context, political analysts and religious commentators have spent years examining how voters who profess a deep faith can support harsh crackdowns on undocumented immigrants and LGBTQ people. According to critics of the movement, the answer lies in an authoritarian belief system that measures righteousness primarily through obedience to a higher power rather than kindness to neighbours.

When Blind Obedience Overrides Human Compassion

'Vertical morality teaches that authority, power and a moral code of right and wrong, or acceptable and unacceptable, come from above,' said Tia Levings**,** a former Christian fundamentalist and the author of A Well-Trained Wife.

Levings explained that this external superior designates rules that those beneath must obey without question. In religion, she argued, this figure is God, whilst in politics, it can become an authoritarian leader demanding total compliance.

The concept, according to its critics, effectively bypasses human compassion in favour of blind allegiance. If a believer's only duty is to please God, the earthly consequences of their actions simply do not matter.

'We get our morals from God and we must obey him, furthering the will of God no matter the cost,' said April Ajoy, author of Star-Spangled Jesus.

How Vertical Morality Demonises Empathy and Protects Power

When ethics flow exclusively from the top down, helping others takes a back seat to following strict decrees, critics argue. This directly opposes what is often described as horizontal morality, which prioritises the wellbeing of communities and aims to cause the least amount of harm to the people around us.

According to progressive Christian advocates, Jesus himself equated loving one's neighbour with loving the divine. In the Gospel of Matthew, caring for the sick and welcoming the stranger are presented as the ultimate measures of faith.

Rachel Klinger Cain, a teacher and content creator, popularised the term through viral videos dissecting conservative Christian ethics. She pointed to the biblical story of Abraham, who was praised for his willingness to sacrifice his own son after believing God commanded it.

'What should happen if you have a horizontal moral system is, you should go, "I am not murdering someone, even if an authority figure has told me to do that",' Klinger Cain said. Under a strictly vertical system, however, she argued, that basic human empathy becomes a punishable sin.

Some conservative authors have also published books arguing that empathy can become toxic. Critics say those arguments encourage parents to reject their own children to avoid supporting what they believe are sins against divine authority.

Experts who criticise this worldview warn that this framework can influence the punitive policies championed by figures within Donald Trump's political orbit. They argue that when every broken rule is viewed as a slight against God, disproportionately harsh punishments for undocumented immigrants suddenly feel justified within this framework.

'They demonise all immigrants as criminals, all queer people as predators, all leftists as violent and all Democrats as satanic, with no evidence to back these claims,' Ajoy argued.

The Political Danger of Vertical Morality in Modern America

Supporters of this analysis argue that this rigid absolutism offers a psychological safety net for people anxious about rapid cultural change. Knowing exactly what the rules are can be deeply comforting for a nervous system overwhelmed by modern complexities.

Yet, they argue, it is precisely this desire for simple answers that primes religious populations for political authoritarianism. Once a congregation is conditioned to accept unquestioning obedience in church, critics say it may be more likely to accept the same dynamic at the ballot box.

'Vertical morality feels safe in chaotic times, when figuring things out or learning from past mistakes feels daunting,' Levings added. She also argued that for many marginalised citizens, complying with this rigid structure is simply a survival tactic to stay safe from retribution.

Malynda Hale, executive director of The New Evangelicals, argued that focusing solely on personal piety blinds believers to systemic injustice. She said it is much easier to police individual sins than to dismantle broader societal inequality or challenge the powerful.

History is littered with atrocities committed by believers who thought they were simply obeying divine orders. Critics of vertical morality argue that similar religious justifications have historically been used to defend practices including the transatlantic slave trade and the Ku Klux Klan.

The modern manifestation, according to its critics, relies heavily on the Old Testament and Reformed theology rather than the New Testament teachings that they associate more closely with Jesus Christ. They argue that it ignores science, human progress and the realities of living in a diverse society.

'If they can convince people that they are of God, then it doesn't matter who they hurt in the process,' Ajoy warned.

The rigidity of what critics describe as fundamentalist authoritarianism leaves little room for questions, diverse worldviews or compassion, they argue. Believers who dare to challenge those beliefs are often cut off from the group.