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

A practical and faith-affirming framework for understanding behavior in faith-based relationships and acknowledging 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.

For a moment, certain terms shed light on what I'd encountered as a teen while wanting to change my faith. Words like church hurt, religious trauma, and spiritual abuse were validating. They helped me understand that I was not imagining the impact I'd carried into adulthood, or that some of what I had experienced in faith settings had been harmful.

But then I saw the broader way some of these terms were being used.

The all-or-nothing thinking behind labeling entire faith communities as “toxic” did not reflect the beautiful things I'd experienced in the same places where harm had occurred. During a time when I was most in need of support, much of what I found left me feeling even more alone and isolated.

So I set those words aside and kept searching for language that could hold more than one truth at a time.

Was it possible to acknowledge harm in faith-based settings without abandoning belief?

The whole thing seemed to make people uncomfortable (for a variety of reasons). And it brought up a lot of charged emotions. When it came to behavior in faith communities was God uncomfortable? Were charged emotions a barrier to understanding for Him?

My First Answer—Jesus Christ

During the period when I set those words aside, carrying those questions, a few answers came through Christ's interactions in The New Testament. Three things that stood out.

• Jesus addressed harmful behavior without abandoning belief.

• He ministered to those affected.

• People kept their place at the table, and there was room for healing, repentance, and growth.

That was the faith-affirming framework I was looking for.

When Most Behavior Is Healthy, Why Name What Is Not?

Before going any further, I want to make clear something I feel is important: most of my experiences in the two faith communities at the center of my life, one as a child, the other as an adult, have been healthy. That's been true for my family as well. Across three generations, the good has far outweighed what's been difficult.

This reflects a recent report from the Wheatley Institute, which also explains why that matters. In 2026, The Religion and Mental Health Connection reviewed over 1000 high-quality studies catalogued in the Oxford University Press Handbook of Religion and Health. What they found was that the positive associations between religious involvement and mental health outnumber negative associations by nearly 10 to 1. The report looked across mental health domains like stress, depression, anxiety, positive emotion, suicide, substance use, and other areas of mental health.

Research like this is valuable. And it affirms what many of us know from lived experience: overall, faith communities strengthen most individuals and society.

Why We Should Care About the One

## Why We Should Care About the One

At the same time, a small percentage of difficulty cannot be ignored. This becomes especially clear when we pencil out “one in ten” in real numbers.

One in ten may not sound like much, but in a congregation of 400, that is 40 people. At a religious university of several thousand, it can be several hundred.

Suddenly, “the one” adds up.

And the one does not stay frozen in time. The one grows up. The one raises a family. Sometimes they stay in their faith community and keep ties with family, even when the impact of their experiences makes faith, belief, and certain relationships more complicated. Other times, they quietly leave. Sometimes the one repeats known patterns because they feel normal. Other times, the one overcorrects, trying to avoid repeating what was painful.

The point is, there are many paths forward, and it can be complicated. Those of us who have been the one (or loved the one) understand the deep yearning for a path forward that is less confusing and more clear.

This is why words for our experiences matter.

And so does leaving the ninety-nine for the one.

A Start to Responding Well

Holding two truths at once can help us respond well: most experiences in faith communities may be healthy, and some people still encounter things that are painful, confusing, or harmful.

Without that careful balance, responses to difficulty may become flattened into a one-size-fits-all responses:

“The church is perfect, but people aren’t.”

“Most outcomes are good, so negative experiences are just outliers.”

“Instead of focusing on the negative, forgive and move on.”

These responses are often said with good intentions, but they can minimize patterns that need to be understood, addressed, or prevented.

And it is worth mentioning that the opposite response can be just as unhelpful. If every uncomfortable interaction is labeled as abuse, we lose the ability to respond with clarity and fairness.

Enter Professor Lisa Oakley's A Spectrum of Behavior

Professor Lisa Oakley’s framework offered the middle road I was looking for.

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 has studied behavior in faith communities for many years. From that work, she developed what she calls A Spectrum of Behavior, a faith-affirming framework for giving language to the range of behaviors people may experience in faith-based settings and relationships.

Finally, I had words.

Her research-informed tools helped me name some of the difficult things I encountered in faith settings as a teen without throwing out everything that was good. They also help me think carefully about how I interact with others in faith-based settings and relationships today.

This language has been invaluable. It helps me discern when to give grace and let something petty go, when to set a boundary, when to speak up, and when harm must be stopped.

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 how I have seen the term spiritual abuse used in the United States. One thing I have 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 understand why this term can feel uncomfortable.

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.

What helped me most was seeing behavior placed along a spectrum.

The Four Categories in Oakley’s Spectrum

Professor Oakley identifies four categories of behavior in faith communities. 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 is important to pause here and say again that most behavior in faith communities is healthy. Research consistently shows that religious participation is associated with many positive outcomes for individuals, families, and communities.¹ That is one reason difficult experiences can feel so confusing when they happen in places we associate with safety, meaning, and trust.

Professor Oakley’s spectrum helps us keep the whole picture: faith communities can be deeply protective, nurturing, and good, while still needing language for the moments when behavior becomes unhelpful, unhealthy, or harmful.

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 our icebergs is shaped by a different past. Some people’s underwater (or past 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 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 reactions as misperception or oversensitivity.

Not Everything Is 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 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. These questions can help us use agency well rather than responding with unfair judgments or knee-jerk reactions.

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?

• 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 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's actually happened. Important distinctions get lost. And that can make it harder to respond in ways that are truly helpful.

We can see this in the way other forms of harm have come to be named more carefully over time. For example, if sexual abuse remained collapsed under the broader category of physical abuse, the specific nature of that harm would not have been understood. This distinction matters because it helps identify not only what happened, but where the harm was felt and what kind of care may be needed going forward.

The same principle applies to harmful behavior in faith-based settings or relationships. When harm occurs in connection with religious language, worship, belonging, authority, or the influence of faith, the impact may later be felt in those same spaces. A person may still believe deeply and feel anxious in places of worship, confusion in prayer, fear around authority, or difficulty trusting relationships connected to faith and belief.

That is why clearly identifying what happened matters. When language is too vague, we may inadvertently minimize harm. When language is too broad, we may over-emphasize human imperfection. When language is careful and specific, we can better understand what we are dealing with, what kind of response is needed, and how to move forward.

Carefully naming behavior in faith-based relationships doesn't have to be an attack on faith. In fact, when done correctly, it can increase and protect it, pointing to healing, prevention, and Christlike care.

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, I've only found one example where this term is used 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 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. 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 an ongoing 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

Research Note: Religion, Mental Health, and Well-Being

¹ See, for example, the Wheatley Institute report *The Religion and Mental Health Connection*, which summarizes research catalogued in the Oxford University Press *Handbook of Religion and Health* and reports that positive associations between religious involvement and mental health outnumber negative associations by approximately 10 to 1. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health has also highlighted longitudinal research linking religious service attendance and spiritual practices with later health and well-being outcomes, while Pew Research Center has found that actively religious adults are often more likely to report happiness and civic engagement and less likely to smoke or drink regularly. As with all social science research, these findings describe broad patterns and associations, not guarantees for every individual experience.

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.