Understanding Lisa Oakley’s Spectrum of Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships

A practical framework for understanding behavior in faith-based relationships—acknowledging difficulties without abandoning belief, while strengthening faith communities with compassion.

I write from lived experience, more than twenty years of serving as a church youth leader, and ongoing learning about evidence-based safeguarding that names harm without undermining faith.

Why Identifying Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships Can Feel Polarizing

Whenever behavior in faith-based relationships comes up, responses often fall into two categories.

Some say, “People are imperfect. Stop making it about church.” Others, after difficult encounters, can have a hard time remembering what was good.

When another's experience is drastically different from our own, it can feel untrue. As we listen, we might think, That’s your perception, but what really happened?

There’s some truth to that. We all see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12), or through the filter of our past experiences. That said, church is made up of people, and when people are involved, behavior is imperfect.

So why bother putting negative behavior into the context of church or faith-based relationships?

Because expectations matter.

Take, for example, the time a sitter took my sister (five) and me (seven) to the movies. Because our parents took us to the movies often, we were expecting to have fun. Imagine the shock to our system when we were taken to a horror movie.

The distress we later felt wasn’t just about what we watched. It included the surprise, failed expectations, and the lack of preparation for that experience.

Faith-centered relationships can work in much the same way. When harm happens in a place we associate with safety, meaning, and trust, the impact may go deeper. It doesn’t just hurt in the moment, it can shape how we relate to that space moving forward.

This is one reason difficult experiences in our faith and families can be especially painful or confusing, when similar behavior elsewhere is easier to brush off.

I share some of my personal experience with this in How I Reclaimed My Agency And Navigated Difficult Experiences in Faith Settings.

A brief note on the term “spiritual abuse”

Before introducing a framework for understanding behavior in faith-based relationships, I want to acknowledge how I've seen the term spiritual abuse used in the United States. One thing I've noticed, is broad usage, often in ways that feel weaponized and aimed at entire faith communities, rather than specific patterns of harm. Because of that, I know how uncomfortable this term can feel.

That said, Professor Oakley’s work approaches this differently. Her research focuses on identifying patterns of behavior, rather than labeling entire belief systems or faith traditions as a whole.

If you’re still wrestling with that term, you’re not alone. I explore that tension more fully in a separate post. For now, this framework can still be helpful, whether or not you choose to use that specific language—which I address further later in this post. But for now, let's talk about the categories of behavior Professor Oakley has identified after her 14-year study of behavior in faith communities.

Understanding the Spectrum of Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships

To better understand when to give grace and when behavior must be addressed, I’d like to introduce the work of one of my heroes: Lisa Oakley.

As a qualitative researcher and a woman of faith, Professor Oakley chaired England’s National Working Group on Child Abuse Linked to Faith and Belief, and she studied behavior in faith communities for fourteen years. From that work, she developed a spectrum of behavior in faith-based relationships, organizing what she observed into categories. The definitions below are Professor Oakley’s, quoted verbatim:

Healthy Behavior

Good, nurturing behavior where people flourish and grow.

Unhelpful Behavior

Reactions/behavior that is not harmful but not helpful. We all behave this way at times.

Unhealthy Behavior

If/when we see a consistent pattern of behavior that is negative, where we check ourselves before approaching that person and where they are not open to questions. Much of behavior that concerns us sits here. It can still be addressed at this stage.

Spiritual Abuse

If it becomes a persistent pattern of coercive controlling behavior that reflects the definition of psychological abuse.

It’s important to say that research shows that most behavior in faith communities is healthy, which is why we often don’t know what to do (or what to call it) when behavior falls outside of that category.

The Iceberg Model

When I first encountered Professor Oakley’s spectrum, it helped me make sense of things that had confused me for decades. After finding her work, I began to picture people (and our experiences in faith-based relationships) as icebergs.

Above the waterline is what’s visible in the moment: someone who looks happy (or stressed), or a comment, reaction, disagreement, or interaction.

Beneath the surface lies more; our accumulated experiences with behavior in religious settings and relationships. In my adaptation of Oakley’s work, the entire underwater portion of an individual’s iceberg is made up of the same four categories identified in her research:

• Healthy Behavior

• Unhelpful Behavior

• Unhealthy Behavior

• Spiritual Abuse

Each of us carries a different iceberg shaped by our past. Some people’s underwater experiences are mostly healthy, with a few blips of unhelpful or unhealthy behavior. Others carry deeper layers of unhealthy patterns, or, in rarer cases, spiritual abuse.

Why This Matters in Real Relationships

We can’t usually see what’s below the surface when we interact with others at church. But, sometimes we do. For example, when an emotional trigger appears or if someone shares a past experience with us. The point is, each of our icebergs are unique.

This may explain why two people can walk away from the same interaction with very different reactions. It also explains why it’s unhelpful to simply dismiss those reactions as misperception or oversensitivity.

Not Everything Is Spiritual Abuse

To be clear, not everything that goes wrong in a faith-based relationship or setting is spiritual abuse. Being careful and clear in how we name behavior prevents escalation. It also protects against minimization and false accusation. Naming behavior correctly ensures that concerns do not go unaddressed.

Most importantly, distinguishing between imperfect behavior, unhealthy patterns, and abuse helps us respond more like our Savior would while ministering to those affected. It also helps us address problematic behavior more effectively.

Why This Framework Is So Helpful

Professor Oakley’s spectrum gives us better questions to ask—questions that help us use agency well rather than responding with knee-jerk reactions or unfair judgments.

Questions to ask:

• Is this behavior a one-off incident that was simply unhelpful?

• Are we seeing a pattern of negative behavior that fits the unhealthy category, but can still be addressed at this stage?

• Or is this an ongoing pattern of psychological abuse within a religious context, where we must put a stop to harmful behavior immediately?

  
  

In my experience, this framework has been especially helpful in understanding behavior in faith-based relationships outside of formal church settings. In some faith communities, like mine, a significant number of interactions happen among members in everyday life. For example, between parents and children, siblings, spouses, friends, work colleagues of the same faith, missionaries, and/or roommates at religious universities.

This is where behaviors like bullying, harassment, hazing, harsh discipline, coercion, or gossip used to harm an individual's reputation may show up. Naming those behaviors clearly, then placing them along a spectrum, helps us discern when to give grace, when to speak up, or when to seek additional help.

Why Careful Naming Matters

Allow me to further explain why identifying behavior matters.

When the words we use to describe behavior are too vague, we may not understand what has actually happened. Important distinctions get lost. And that can make it harder to respond in ways that are truly helpful.

But when we use careful and specific language, situations become more clear. We can better see what kind of behavior we’re dealing with, what kind of response is needed, and how to move forward.

Carefully naming behavior in faith-based relationships is not an attack on faith. When done correctly, it actually protects faith—because understanding can be the first step toward creating pathways toward healing and prevention.

Still Unsure of the Term Spiritual Abuse?

If you're still uneasy with the term spiritual abuse, you are not alone. After seeing the term used broadly and inconsistently, I understand the discomfort.

In my own faith community, for example, the term is rarely used despite extensive safeguarding resources.

The good news is that even if we set aside the term spiritual abuse, there are still ways to identify harmful behavior, minister to spiritual wounds, and prevent it.

Another Option: Name Harmful Behavior Specifically

Rather than relying on a single term like spiritual abuse, my faith community focuses on naming specific behaviors. Alongside definitions of more widely recognized forms of abuse, this section includes “Other Abusive Behaviors,” with the clarification that “while not all of these would be defined as abuse, they are all harmful behaviors against the teachings of the gospel.”

Here are some examples from my faith community's website

• Emotional and verbal abuse: words or actions that undermine emotional development or self-worth. Examples: constant faultfinding, belittling, rejection, and withholding of love, support, or guidance.

• Harsh Discipline: criticism or ridicule that undermines confidence, rather than guiding a child to learn right from wrong.

• Harassment: creating a hostile environment through comments, gestures, innuendo, or violations of personal space.

• Bullying: aggressive behavior with the intent of causing injury or discomfort. Examples: physical contact, words, or more subtle actions.

• Hazing: Hazing can occur when a peer imposes an inappropriate or humiliating task on another peer as part of an initiation into a group.

Seeing these behaviors defined this way can help clear up confusion—especially when similar patterns show up in faith-based relationships and are harder to name.

Even without using the term spiritual abuse, you can see how these definitions name behaviors that cause spiritual and emotional harm when they occur in faith-based settings or relationships.

A Definition That Ties it All together: Coercion

Alongside the specific examples above, one definition from my church's youth protection training stands out:

“Coercion can occur when a leader (and I would add, parent) compels a child using religious language or authority that implies a spiritual obligation or duty, permission, sanction, punishment, justification, intimidation, or threat. This is contrary to the Savior’s teaching that individuals should lead ‘only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.’” —Youth Protection Training

When I share this definition, people are usually surprised, which makes sense. Religious language has, at times, been used in ways that imply obligation or duty. The key word here is compels.

Compulsion is the opposite of what Jesus modeled.

Christ invited, taught, and inspired those He came in contact with while leaving room for agency. His interactions highlight the fact that becoming “a new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17) is a process that unfolds. It is a "line upon line," "precept upon precept" journey (Isaiah 28:10) that rarely happens all at once. It cannot be coerced.

So, it's not authority or instruction that are a problem. It's how we lead and instruct. Many handbooks and trainings in various faith communities outline how to lead and teach with Christlike influence. See my collection of resources for various faith communities.

If Not Coercion, Then What?

Throughout the scriptures, Jesus modeled how to lead and teach in ways that preserved agency and invited real change. A few thoughts from His words and example:

Leading Like a Good Shepherd

When lost sheep see their shepherd coming, they don't feel embarrassed or ashamed, they feel relief.

Seeing Conversion as a Path

A path implies one (or a few) steps at a time, giving room for mistakes, learning, and growth.

Remembering The Way Is “Strait”

A "strait" is a body of water full of mud, rocks, and currents. This is much different than a "straight" path that unfolds perfectly without course-correction.

Meeting People Where They Are

When has someone met you where you were (instead of rushing you beyond your capacity?) What happened next? Did it empower growth?

Trusting Jesus Christ

As far as helping others, Christ needs us, but sometimes, not as much as we think. When others aren't where we think they should be, we can look at His timelines in our own lives, then trust that they are just as perfect with someone else.

If you’re wondering how to respond when someone shares a painful experience, this may also be helpful:

How to Respond When Someone Shares a Painful Experience in a Faith Setting or Relationship

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Spectrum of Behavior in faith-based relationships?

A Spectrum of Behavior is a framework developed by Professor Lisa Oakley from her fourteen-year study of behavior in faith communities. It organizes behavior into four categories: healthy (where people flourish and grow), unhelpful (not harmful but not helpful), unhealthy (a consistent negative pattern that can still be addressed), and, in rarer cases, a persistent pattern of coercive control that aligns with psychological abuse.

Research consistently shows that most behavior in faith communities is healthy—which is why it can be difficult to recognize or name behavior when it falls outside of that.

What is the iceberg model and why does it matter in faith settings?

The iceberg model, developed by Jennifer Weaver as an adaptation of Professor Lisa Oakley’s work, A Spectrum of Behavior, pictures each person’s accumulated experiences in faith-based relationships as an iceberg. What is visible above the surface is the current interaction. Beneath it lies a person’s full history of experiences—healthy, unhelpful, unhealthy, or harmful.

Two people can walk away from the same interaction with very different reactions, not because one is wrong, but because their “icebergs” are different. Jesus saw beneath the surface—He ministered to where people actually were, not just what appeared on the surface. He can help us do the same.

What is coercion in a faith setting according to youth protection training?

Youth protection training in at least one faith community defines coercion as compelling someone using religious language or authority in a way that implies spiritual obligation, duty, permission, sanction, punishment, justification, intimidation, or threat.

This is contrary to the Savior’s teaching that individuals should be led “only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” The key distinction is the word compels. Jesus invited, taught, and inspired—He never compelled.

Coercion can also take more than one form. It may include pressure toward belief, pressure away from belief, or consequences tied to deeply held convictions.

Why does it help to carefully name behavior in faith-based relationships?

Careful naming prevents two problems at once: minimizing real harm and over-labeling ordinary human imperfection. When we can distinguish between an unhelpful comment, an unhealthy pattern, and something more serious, we are better equipped to respond wisely.

This may mean extending grace, addressing behavior directly, or seeking additional support. Careful naming brings clarity, and clarity helps us respond more like the Savior—with intention rather than reactivity.

Naming behavior in faith-based relationships is not an attack on faith. When done well, it actually protects it.