How Lisa Oakley’s "A Spectrum of Behavior" Helped Me Name Difficult Faith Experiences Without Abandoning Belief

A faith-affirming framework for understanding behavior in faith-based relationships that acknowledges difficulties without abandoning belief.

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 So Polarizing

Several years ago, I was at the end of my rope with words.

At first, certain words felt validating. Terms like church hurt, religious trauma, and spiritual abuse summed up some of what I'd experienced as a teen during a difficult faith change.

But then I saw how those terms were often used. Blacklisting faith communities and/or labeling them as "toxic" didn't reflect all of the good I'd experienced in the same communities where harm had occurred.

So I set those words aside, and kept searching. Did acknowledging harm without abandoning belief have to be this hard? The first answer came with a pattern that emerged alongside the Savior's interactions in the New Testament.

My First Answer—Jesus Christ

Christ's interactions in settings and relationships surrounding faith and belief revealed a few things:

• He didn't shy away from addressing harm.

• He frequently called out problematic behavior.

He did so in ways that not only didn't abandon faith or belief, it increased it.

I also noticed that those who made mistakes kept their place at the table.

No one was beyond healing, growth, or redemption.

Eventually, I stumbled on the faith-affirming framework I was looking for. But first, let me back up and address something important.

If Most Behavior in Faith Communities is Healthy, Why Name What Is Not?

To be clear, most of my experiences in the two faith communities that have been at the center of my life (one as a child, the other as an adult) have been nurturing and healthy.

And this reflects a recent report by the Wheatley Institute. In April of 2026, The Religion and Mental Health Connection reviewed over 1000 high-quality studies catalogued in the Oxford University Press Handbook of Religion and Health. Their finding was that positive associations between improved mental health and involvement in a religious community outnumbered negative associations nearly 10 to 1. This affirms what I (and many others) know from our lived experience: in most cases, individuals and society are strengthened by religious communities.

That said, the one in ten can't be ignored, which becomes clear once that's penciled out in real numbers. One in ten may not sound like much, but take a congregation of four hundred, that's forty people. Or a religious university of several thousand, now that's a few hundred.

Suddenly, the "One" adds up.

And the one doesn't stay frozen in time. The One grows up. The One raises a family. Sometimes they stay in their faith and keep ties with family, other times, they don't. In some cases, the One repeats patterns that feel normal. Other times, they overcorrect in an attempt to avoid repeating the past.

As one who spent decades navigating all that, I can tell you, it's complicated. Which is why the faith-affirming framework I stumbled upon has been so impactful for me and my family.

Professor Lisa Oakley's A Spectrum of Behavior

One day, another Google search finally yielded the fruit I was looking for— a faith-affirming framework for understanding behavior in faith-based relationships.

As a woman of faith, and a qualitative researcher, Professor Lisa Oakley chaired England’s National Working Group on Child Abuse Linked to Faith and Belief. After studying behavior in faith communities for many, many years, that work led to the development of a practical tool: A Spectrum of Behavior.

Finally, I had words. And it wasn't steeped in all or nothing thinking.

Professor Oakley's research-informed tools helped me name the difficult things I'd experienced in faith settings without throwing out everything that was good. In fact, it confirmed the good I'd experienced. And it's helped me think carefully about how I interact with those I come into contact with in faith-based settings and relationships.

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 sharing Professor Oakley’s categories, I want to acknowledge the difference between Professor Oakley's use of the term spiritual abuse and how I've seen it used in the United States. One thing I have noticed is that Professor Oakley’s work focuses on identifying patterns of behavior rather than labeling entire belief systems.

So if, like me, you’ve wrestled with that term, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that this framework can be helpful whether or not you choose to use that specific term.

The Four Categories of Behavior in Oakley’s Spectrum

Professor Oakley identifies four categories of behavior in faith communities. The definitions below are Lisa 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.

Professor Oakley’s spectrum reflects a complete picture: behavior in faith communities can be nurturing and good, while still needing language for instances when behavior becomes harmful (or simply unhelpful).

The Iceberg Model

When I first came across Professor Oakley’s spectrum, I began to picture experiences and people as icebergs. The following is my adaptation of her work.

Looking at an iceberg, we notice that what's above the waterline is what’s visible in the moment: someone who looks happy or stressed, or a comment, reaction, disagreement, or interaction that is either healthy or unhelpful or unhealthy.

But beneath the surface lies more: our accumulated experiences with behavior in faith-based settings and relationships. In my adaptation, 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

Since each of our icebergs is shaped by a different past, many people’s underwater (or past experiences) may be mostly healthy (with a few blips of unhelpful or unhealthy behavior). Others carry deeper layers of unhealthy patterns, or, in rarer cases, abuse.

Why This Matters in Real Relationships

We can’t usually see what’s below the surface when we interact with others, but sometimes we do. For example, when a trigger appears or if someone shares an experience with us. The point is, each of our icebergs is 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 as misperception or oversensitivity.

All Imperfect Behavior Is Not Spiritual Abuse

To be clear, not everything that goes wrong in a faith-based setting or relationship is spiritual abuse. Being careful and clear in how we name behavior can prevent knee-jerk reactions, escalation, false accusations, and minimizing harm. It also helps us respond well and minister more like our Savior and address problematic behavior more effectively.

Why This Framework Is So Helpful

Professor Oakley’s spectrum also gives us better questions to ask, which can help us use agency well rather than responding with unfair judgments.

Questions to ask:

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

• Is it part of an ongoing pattern that fits the unhealthy category, but can still be addressed?

• Is this behavior consistent with psychological abuse that must be stopped immediately?

  
  

In some faith communities, like mine, a significant number of interactions happen among members in everyday life (outside of formal church settings). For example, between parents and children, siblings, spouses, friends, work colleagues of the same faith, missionaries, and roommates at religious universities. In my experience, this is where this framework has been especially helpful as this is where behaviors like bullying, harassment, hazing, harsh discipline, coercion, or gossip intended to harm an individual's reputation may show up. Naming these behaviors clearly and placing them along a spectrum can help us know when to speak up, give grace, or seek additional help.

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 inconsistently (and too broadly) I understand the discomfort.

In my own faith community, I've only found one example where this term is used in church materials despite extensive abuse prevention resources.

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

Another Option: Name The Specific Behavior

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.”

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 clearly defined clears up confusion. Even without using the term spiritual abuse, you can see how these definitions clearly name behaviors that cause harm.

A Definition That Ties it All together: Coercion

Alongside the 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, it often catches people off-guard, which makes sense, because 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 an ongoing process or a "line upon line," "precept upon precept" journey (Isaiah 28:10). Conversion rarely happens all at once, and it cannot be coerced.

The point is, authority, correction, and instruction isn't the problem. It's how we lead and instruct while trying to influence faith. Many handbooks and trainings in various faith communities outline Christlike influence. See my collection of resources for various faith communities.

If Not Coercion, Then What?

Throughout the scriptures, Jesus modeled leading, teaching, and ministering in ways that preserved dignity and agency while inviting real change. A few examples that come to mind:

Lead Like a Good Shepherd

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

See Conversion as a Path

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

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.

Meet 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?

Trust 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.

For ideas on responding well to a loved one's difficulty, see: 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.