Understanding a Spectrum of Behavior in Faith-Based Relationships
- Jen Weaver
- Jan 30
- 8 min read
Updated: 3 hours ago
After years of 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 faith and healthy cultures.
I write from lived experience, more than twenty years of working with youth in church settings, and ongoing learning about evidence-based safeguarding that names harm clearly without undermining faith.
When 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 by listing 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) and through the filter of past experience. And church (like PTA meetings, PhD programs, and club soccer) is made up of people. And where people are involved, there's going to be stuff.
So why bother putting negative behavior into the context of church or faith-based relationships?
Because expectations matter.
Take, for example, the time a babysitter 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 and the lack of preparation.
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 can go deep. It doesn’t just hurt in the moment; it can shape how we relate to that space moving forward.
This is one reason experiences connected to faith and belief can feel especially confusing and painful, even when similar behavior elsewhere might be easier to brush off.
If you’re interested in the personal journey that led me to this framework, and why a faith-affirming approach matters so deeply to me, I share my experience in a separate post.
All imperfect behavior is not the same
To better understand when to give grace and when behavior is concerning enough to 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 for 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, organizing what she observed into four categories:
Healthy – Good, nurturing behavior where people flourish and grow.
Unhelpful – Reactions/behavior that is not harmful but not helpful. We all behave this way at times.
Unhealthy – 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 part of an iceberg we don’t see
When I first encountered Professor Oakley’s spectrum, it helped me make sense of things that had confused me for a long time. After finding her work, I began to picture people (and our experiences in faith-based relationships) as icebergs.
What we see above the waterline is what’s visible in the moment: people that look happy (or stressed). Or maybe, a comment, a reaction, a disagreement, or an interaction.
But beneath the surface lies more, such as 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
Unhelpful
Unhealthy
Spiritual Abuse
Each of us carries a different iceberg shaped by our past. Some people’s past (or underwater) experiences are mostly healthy, with a few blips of behavior that's unhelpful or unhealthy. Others carry deeper layers of unhealthy patterns or, in rarer cases, spiritual abuse.
We can’t usually see what’s below the surface when we interact with others. 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 helps explain why two people can walk away from the same interaction with very different reactions. It also explains why it’s unhelpful to 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 and protects against both minimization and false accusation. Naming behavior correctly also ensures that concerns do not go unaddressed.
Distinguishing between imperfect behavior, unhealthy patterns, and abuse helps us respond more like our Savior would where we minister (to both those receiving and causing harm) with clarity and care.
Why this framework is so helpful
Professor Oakley’s spectrum gives us better questions to ask. The following questions can help us respond in ways that use agency well, rather than with unfair judgment or a knee-jerk reaction:
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 faith-based influence is being used to coerce or control?
In my experience, this framework has been especially helpful in understanding behavior in faith-based relationships outside of formal church settings. This is because in some faith communities, like mine, a greater number of interactions happen among church members rather than church leaders. For example, among 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, or coercion often show up. Naming those behaviors clearly, then placing them along a spectrum, helps us discern when to give grace and let go and when to speak up or seek additional help.
In case you're unsure careful naming matters
Allow me to further explain why identifying behavior matters with an analogy. And just a heads up, this is a sensitive one.
There’s 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 because sex is a sacred gift from God.”
We don’t say that because the distinction communicates what happened, where the harm is felt, and what kind of care is needed for both prevention and healing.
In the same way, carefully naming harmful behavior in faith-based relationships doesn’t attack faith. It strengthens it.
Still unsure of the term spiritual abuse? That’s okay.
If you still feel 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 regularly use this term, and hesitation makes sense.
In my own faith community, for example, I can find only one instance where the term spiritual abuse is used (despite extensive, well-developed resources focused on preventing harmful behavior).
The good news is that even if we set aside the term spiritual abuse, there is still so much to learn about prevention and ministering to those with spiritual wounds.
Another option: naming 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 solely to abuse prevention. Alongside definitions of more widely recognized forms of abuse, this section includes what are called “Other Abusive Behaviors,” with the clarification that “while not all of these would be defined as abuse, they are all harmful behaviors” and are “against the teachings of the gospel.”
Those behaviors include the following (among others):
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 emotional and spiritual harm, when they occur in faith-based settings or relationships.
One definition that ties it all together: coercion
Alongside these examples, one definition from my faith community’s youth protection training stands out to me:
“Coercion can occur when a leader (or 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 sometimes surprised. That reaction makes sense. Religious language has, at times, been used in ways that implied 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 "line upon line" and "precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10). In other words, change cannot be coerced and it rarely happens all at once.
So, authority and instruction are not the problem. It's how we lead and instruct that matters. As outlined in many church handbooks and trainings (see my collection of resources for various faith communities) education and intervention matters. Addressing harm without hesitation can prevent spiritual wounds. It also reflects the actions of Jesus Christ.
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 their herd from the front with a voice that's trusted and familiar to their sheep. The relationship is long-term. When a lost sheep sees their shepherd coming, they likely feel relief (not embarrassed or ashamed).
See conversion as a path
A path implies one (or a few) steps at a time. This gives room for agency, learning and mistakes, and growth.
Remember that the way is “strait”
A "strait" is a body of water full of mud, rocks, and unpredictable currents. This is much different than a path that is "straight" or one that unfolds perfectly or without course-correction.
Meet people where they are
When has someone and accepted you where you were on your path (instead of trying to rush you to a place beyond your capacity?) Did that empower your growth? What happened next?
Trust Jesus Christ
As far as helping others, Jesus Christ needs us, but sometimes, not as much as we think. When others aren't where we think they should be, it can be good to remember that His timelines with individuals are perfect, and usually, known only to Him.
The framework discussed here brings us to other conversations that are:
how to respond well when someone shares church hurt
how faith-affirming communities are providing support to minimize harm
The first is a conversation you can find here. The other is in the Safeguarding section of this site.
Comments