The focus of change

the framework into an individual style. This can be both sensitive to context and the preferences of therapist and client, for instance greater or lesser desire for an ordered, ‘step by step’ process.

This space for individualising the process appears to be important: Cummings and Lucchese’s research acknowledges that alongside our core values influencing the adoption of specific approaches, incidental issues also play a part, possibly even a primary role. These individual factors include the supervisor’s orientation and that of their personal therapist, plus social, cultural, personal and historical events, all of which may be in conflict with the therapist’s core personality preference. A personalised approach helps minimise this possible dissonance. A static relationship between practitioner and orientation is also doubtful, and so room for ‘evolution’ needs to exist.

This current work is itself an attempt to argue for ‘evolution’ not ‘revolution’, by setting forth the strengths of the Waverley Model alongside contemporary theological developments regarding, for instance, imago Dei. Additionally, scientific research on human functioning, for instance neuroscience and that which is directly related to the therapeutic process, has also been utilised for the same purpose.

This section will demonstrate how the Waverley Model and relevant teaching material has been adapted increasingly to emphasise relationality as a key aspect of therapeutic change. ‘Change’ in this context parallels ‘Resolution’, ie phase three of Hughes’ Model.

As discussed in Chapter 3, ‘Model of Health’, the Waverley Model articulates movement towards health primarily in terms of the process of repentance. The concept of repentance is articulated in specific terms relating to Christdependence: ‘our crucial needs or deep longings can only be met in a deep and ongoing relationship with Christ.’174 Beyond this, the effects of our social context are also acknowledged as impacting healthy development, but only secondarily: ‘Other people may support us, strengthen us and minister to our needs but we are complete only in Him.’175

Given the emphasis on Christ-dependence for health, pathology is closely

linked to God-displacement and is regarded as the core dynamic of sin: ‘The essence of sin is God-displacement. We expel God from the place which He has reserved for Himself – the centre of our beings.’176 As a result of the above theological emphases, Hughes regards the counsellor’s task as primarily helping the client become aware of how misplaced dependency is related to and maintains problems, and so blocks the change necessary for promoting health.

For Hughes, this ‘core’ spiritual repentance precedes and is the motive for potential change in the other four areas which make up the structure of his model of personality. For example, aligning our thinking with a biblical perspective of the self, others and the world (Rational Area); changing goals and related behaviours (Volitional Area); managing emotions (Emotional Area) and looking after our bodies (Physical Area). Additionally, Hughes warns that changes in the latter four areas of personality, if not predicated upon his notion of a spiritual repentance, will only lead to self-sufficiency – the very issue that Hughes asserts is at the centre of most of our problems. Historically the Waverley literature has encompassed awareness of how relational factors such as transference and counter-transference can mediate the process of therapeutic change. In the past this has not been a significant emphasis, perhaps due to Hughes’ desire to keep explicitly scriptural principles as a central foundation for change. However, relational factors as an aspect of potential healing are increasingly emphasised in response to empirically based outcome research in psychotherapy.

It should be noted that many Christian counselling approaches have always emphasised the central importance of the therapeutic relationship as being a key agent of positive change. Hurding cites those embracing evangelical, liberal and Catholic traditions. Hughes, whilst focusing upon the power of Scripture, shows an understanding that a ‘turn to the word’ must not be undertaken outside of relational sensitivity and a compassionate presence with the client. He states:

the biggest single mistake that people make when trying to help someone... is to turn too quickly to the Scriptures... If there is one thing I have learned over 50 years of helping people with their problems, it is that people in difficulty don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.177

These concerns of Hughes help avoid a stereotypical view of the Waverley Model as promoting Scripture as a ‘prescriptive pill to cure all ills’. Indeed, the quotations of both Hughes and Crabb cited at the beginning of this book demonstrate an openness on both parts to develop their respective models in the light of new data as part of an always incomplete ‘journey of discovery’. This ‘journey’ implies potential modification and adaptation, which is evidenced, for example, by a comparison of Waverley’s counselling curriculum for the Certificate of Christian Counselling 2000–2001 and 2010–2011. Various additions have been made to the latter (absent in the former) which place a greater emphasis on the relevance of our relationality in fostering therapeutic change:

1. The ‘five areas of functioning’ of the traditional Waverley Model are now preceded by a ‘relational area’. This area highlights the importance of an emphasis upon the value of the therapeutic relationship.

2. The counselling skills module now starts with a lecture on the therapeutic relationship. This primary place in the order of subjects taught is intentional, as all other skills are regarded as either adding to, or undermining this important phenomenon.

3. ‘Process Groups’ now occur weekly throughout the certificate course, and regularly in each of the other two years of the degree. They are also a regular feature on the degree course held at Waverley Abbey House. These groups express the value Waverley now places on students’ relational awareness developing through an ongoing experience of ‘encounter’, and reflection on this experience.

These three adaptations are examples of a changing emphasis which impacts all three modules constituting the certificate course: theory, skills and personal/professional development. In addition to the above, a recently published Waverley counselling course reader written by Kallmier, who was until 2010 CWR’s Director of Training, devotes one chapter to the therapeutic relationship, placing a high value upon it. He states: