Understanding Lisa Oakley’s Spectrum of Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships
- Jen Weaver
- Jan 30
- 8 min read
Updated: 8 hours ago
After searching for non-polarizing resources to understand behavior in faith-based relationships, I found Lisa Oakley’s research. It reshaped my understanding and gave me hope that this topic can be explored in ways that build (rather than dismantle) faith and healthy cultures.
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 Negative Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships Feels So Polarizing
Whenever negative behavior in faith-based relationships comes up, responses often fall into two extremes.
Some say, “People are imperfect. Stop making it about church.” Others respond with endless examples of harm, as if almost nothing has been good.
When someone’s experience is drastically different from our own, it can feel untrue. As we listen, we may think, That’s your perception, but what really happened?
There’s some truth there. We all see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12), or through a filter of past experience. 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 often, we were expecting to have fun. Imagine the shock to our system when we were taken to a horror movie.
The distress we felt later 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 goes deep. It doesn’t just hurt in the moment; it may shape how we relate to that space moving forward.
This is one reason experiences connected to faith and belief can be especially confusing and painful, even when similar behavior elsewhere might be easier to brush off.
I share more of my personal experience navigating this tension in Church Hurt and Spiritual Abuse: How I Stayed Faithful and Reclaimed My Agency.
I also share how I found a faith-affirming framework for clarity and healing as I searched for non-polarizing, evidence-based resources.
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 four categories:
The definitions for the categories 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. That may be 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 (Sensitive Analogy)
Allow me to further explain why identifying behavior matters with an analogy. And just a heads up, this is a sensitive one.
There is a reason we don’t simply define sexual abuse as physical abuse and say, “Don’t use the word sex with abuse; just call it physical abuse—sex is a sacred gift from God.”
The distinction communicates exactly what happened and where the harm is felt. It helps us know what kind of care is needed for both healing and prevention.
The same can be said of carefully naming harmful behavior in faith-based relationships. Rather than attack faith, naming harmful behavior can strengthen it.
Still Unsure of the Term Spiritual Abuse?
If you're still uneasy with the term spiritual abuse, you’re not alone. After years of seeing non-evidence-based definitions weaponized, and broadly aimed at entire faith communities, I understand the discomfort. Add to that inconsistent definitions and the fact that most churches don’t use this term, and hesitation makes sense.
In my own faith community, for example, I have found only one instance where the term spiritual abuse is used (despite extensive, well-developed resources on my faith community's website for preventing harmful behavior).
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 in a section of its website dedicated to abuse prevention. 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: Emotional and verbal abuse is treating a person in a way that attacks his or her emotional development and sense of worth. Examples include constant faultfinding, belittling, rejection, and withholding of love, support, or guidance. It also includes a child witnessing domestic violence.
Harsh Discipline: Children are helped and strengthened by appropriate and loving discipline. However, criticism or ridicule can undermine their confidence and feelings of self-worth and well-being. Positive discipline will help the child to learn right from wrong. Harsh discipline that causes physical injury is abuse and should be reported to legal authorities.
Harassment: Harassment creates a hostile environment that can cause problems ranging from decreased participation in normal activities to thoughts of suicide. It can include derogatory comments or gestures, innuendo, violating personal space, and looking at or commenting about private body parts. This can also include using online profiles or content to stalk another person or to intimidate them.
Bullying: Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words, or more subtle actions.
(“Bullying,” American Psychological Association)
Hazing: Hazing can occur when a peer imposes an inappropriate or humiliating task on another peer as part of an initiation into a group.
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 these examples, 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 surprised. That reaction 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 people while leaving room for agency. Becoming “a new creature in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17) is a process that unfolds. The scriptures describe this as "line upon line" and "precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10). In other words, change rarely happens all at once and it cannot be coerced.
So, authority and instruction are not the problem. It's how we lead and instruct. As outlined in many handbooks and trainings in various faith communities, education matters. See my collection of resources for various faith communities.
It is important to note that addressing harm without hesitation reflects Him. It is how Jesus responded within His own faith community throughout scripture.
If Not Coercion, Then What?
This question will be at the heart of many (if not most) of my upcoming posts. For now, it can be summed up like this:
Lead Like a Good Shepherd
Good shepherds lead sheep with a trusted voice. Now imagine one becomes lost. When they see their shepherd coming, instead of feeling embarrassed or ashamed, the lost sheep likely feels relief.
See Conversion as a Path
A path implies one (or a few) steps at a time, giving room for agency, mistakes, learning, and growth.
Remember, 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 Jesus Christ
As far as helping others, Christ needs us, but sometimes, not as much as we think. When others aren't where we feel they should be, we can remember that His timelines with individuals are perfect, and usually, known only to Him.
Where to go next
The framework discussed here brings us to other conversations:
Comments