MAJOR CHANGE came with the retirement of Jim Sutton in 1980 by which time Alec Gilmore had replaced Douglas Chesterton as General Secretary of USCL. In 13 years FTM had well established itself in the churches and missionary societies throughout the UK but the interest was always peripheral, the commitment modest and the base small.
Grant income was in the region of £400,000, half of which came through SPCK, mostly from Anglican parishes and largely contributed to the well-established traditional appeal for SPCK's Mission Funds, (the fruit of ancient loyalties) rather than to FTM. The other half came roughly in equal proportions from USCL and the FTM appeal. Possibly because of its more ecumenical nature, USCL’s appeal to the churches (never having been a denominational Society) lacked the natural loyalty the Anglicans afforded to SPCK and the number of its personal members had declined. With the end of the Campaign many of the FTM Campaign committees had lapsed and as the workers got older it became increasingly difficult to replace them.
Confused Funding and Staff Overload
One consequence of the loophole which allowed the Societies to go on raising funds simultaneously for themselves, and for those pieces of work they were particularly interested in, was to produce an imbalance in the decision-making programme. It meant that if the FTM staff (Lunn, Sutton and Gilmore) reached agreement the grant was (or was not) recommended to the full FTM Committee which normally supported its staff. If they disagreed the dynamics were more difficult. SPCK and USCL could always take unilateral action by dipping into separate investment income, and sometimes did. FTM had nowhere else to go, which effectively gave the two Societies a veto on FTM funds whereas FTM had no veto over either Society. Most delicate situations were saved by the personal relationships between 'the trio', the good sense of the two Societies or the grace of FTM but nobody could say it was an ideal way of doing business. The dream of 1967, with FTM as 'an embryonic union of SPCK and USCL’, had been partially taken on board but never enthusiastically received or developed.
With such unsatisfactory arrangements, coupled with the confused nature of the appeal, it is not surprising that FTM as an ongoing Movement never proved much more successful than the Campaign and clearly with three senior members of staff and three Committees FTM was still in overload.
Three into Two won’t go – SPCK says Goodbye …
Jim Sutton’s retirement provided the catalyst for change. Economically, the logical step was for the two Societies to take full responsibility for administration but the missionary societies (CFWM) were unwilling to surrender their representation thereby surrendering Feed the Minds to two parties the more powerful of which was denominational. After much discussion and a delay which was damamging the cause SPCK decided to withrdraw and leave United Society for Christian Literature and the missionary societies to go ahead together.'
Several proposals were put forward and discussed. Those which suited SPCK were rejected by the missionary societies and vice versa till the point was reached when both FTM and USCL were suffering as a result of the uncertainty. When time ran out the missionary societies and USCL came to an agreement, SPCK opted out, re-instituted SPCK Worldwide and remained there for twenty years.
At the same time (entirely unrelated and for quite different reasons) USCL discontinued publishing, sold its stock and Lutterworth Press imprint to James Clarke of Cambridge, ceased fund-raising and agreed to live on its investment income, channelling all its resources through the FTM Committee with USCL representation, and allowing FTM to speak with one voice.
Despite the upheaval good personal relationships were maintained with SPCK, with much sharing of information as previously though without the formal structures and in the mid-90s informal structures were developed which in 2002 enabled SPCK to assume responsibility for FTM until new formal structures could be established.
… then … Hello again
2003, therefore, saw the arrival of FTM Mark 3 with a decision by SPCK to return to the fold and to place all their fund-raising under the FTM banner, though recognising that many Anglicans would see their contribution as 'to the Society' even though they knew it was being shared with FTM for processing. To maintain Anglican loyalty, however, it was agreed to retain the concept of SPCK Worldwide. No doubt yet again history will judge it as 'less than satisfactory' but at least the 'three trumpets' were down to two.
Nor surprisingly,, as with all reunions and restored relationships, the FTM to which SPCK returned was not quite the FTM which they had left some 20 years earlier.
THE YEARS APART
Through all the comings and goings in the period from the end of the FTM Campaign to the establishent of FTM’s total independence the overall policy remained the same, the day-to-day work changed little and the years were marked by steady growth and development.
In part this may be attributed to the fact that USCL, SPCK and FTM (in the shape of the missionary societies represented in CFWM) had all grown from the same stock and after nearly 30 years of co-operation were unlikely to go off in different directions. Policy remained steady, staff changes were few and the programmes of USCL, SPCK and FTM continued with much the same partners and relationships as before and after the Campaign. Minor differences there always were but in general the principles on which they operated were always the same, namely
- a holistic approach to education for life
- to encourage churches in the Third World to establish their own literature work
- to encourage and enable self-support and independence.
Such minor differences as there were tended to be more matters of emphasis than substance. USCL tended to lean more to publishing institutions or bookselling than churches. SPCK, though fundamentally Anglican, regularly supported all the mainstream agencies, whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Reformed or ecumenical, and whereas FTM perhaps preferred long-term programmes, SPCK would often be prepared to ‘make a contribution’ to something (or someone) 'deserving of encouragement' despite doubts about long-term value.
All avoided polarisation, whether political or theological, gave only to recognised bodies and not to individuals, and avoided potential partners if they were narrowly isolationist, aggressive or hostile to other church bodies. All occasionally made gifts in kind (rather than cash), particularly where it was economically sound to do so or where the need arose more from a shortage of foreign exchange than one of poverty.
Some long-standing overseas partnerships such as those between USCL and the United Church of Zambia, the parallel one between SPCK and Multi-Media and the FTM one with the Africa Literature Centre (both in Zambia), came to an end. Some, like the literacy programmes in Bangladesh through CCDB continued and flourished. A few new ones arrived, including three with programmes in the Middle East. One or two (not for the first time) received their ‘marching orders', some being given a three year final (and reducing) grant. Other organisations with good records were cultivated and instead of constantly cutting down requests it became possible sometimes to increase them especially where the work was going well and in need.
Literacy and Health Education
One new development was an increase in support for literacy programmes associated with HIV/AIDS in Congo, Kenya and Zimbabwe, working through churches and schools with the encouragement of the local Education Department, to reach children before they become sexually active and to help young people to make the right choices. Most of it was positive, Christian and holistic, sometimes including marriage counselling and family life and often in close association with other UK agencies who turned to FTM for help with the literature, so desperately needed but outside their remit.
Administration procedures too were tightened. The role of grants advisers increased, especially in the case of new applicants, requests continued to be thoroughly examined, and grant acknowledgements and reports regularly requested. Perhaps one of the biggest advances came with the arrival of email which increased both the speed and level of communication. Queries and hesitations which once would have had to be ignored because of the time required for communication could now be checked in a matter of days and many partners were particularly good at developing electronic technology.
THE RETURN
Even a decade before the Return there were hints that all was not well, unreocognised, or recognised but not acknowledged.
For USCL its 200th Celebration (1999) marked the end of an era. Its identity inevitably faded once it ceased all publishing and promotional activity and (except for a few grants in the UK) ceased making grants in its own name, its identity continuing in regular meetings under the Terms of its Trust with own Committes and Trustees. For most of FTM Mark 2 its main operation had been managing capital resources which in 2000 were valued at £2m and produced an annual income of £100,000 but increasingly the trend was away from specifics (eg TBR, FTM Regional workers, etc) to an annual block grant, almost exclusively through Feed the Minds.
Frances Shaw, one of the two secretaries of an ever-diminishing USCL Committee, who represented USCL at the 90th andagain at the (somewhat lower key) 100th birthday celebrations of their Patron, the Queen Mother, said that when she went to the Queen Mother’s funeral she realised that it marked a turning point. USCL was unlikely ever again to have a royal personage.
In the Years Between FTM had certainly established itself to a degree. Scotland in fact was almost totally and single-mindedly FTM. The Book Service, TBR and the various Book Grants were thriving, useful and appreciated. It had the benefits of an ecumenical base and could appeal more easily to secular bodies at the local and regional level through Rotary Clubs and Book Fairs. On the other hand, its subscriber list was declining and when costs became unacceptably high there were inevitably question marks over its survival. A succession of full-time fund-raisers had never quite justified their costs and though a few part-time regional workers probably put in far more hours than they were paid for and it was always difficult to assess their results except in terms of income and that was never sufficiently satisfactory to justify the outlay.
There were however serious problems for FTM, and of a different order, part ecclesiastical and part secular. With changes of personnel in church and missionary society headquarters as well as in FTM itself the old alliances, partnerships and natural relationships were no longer working smoothly and the commitment of the member bodies became increasingly difficult to sustain, while modern charity law and employment regulations made it difficult to operate a small staff without the necessary knowledge and expertise. In Today’s world steadily rising overheads and new requirements of Charity Law were making it extremely difficult for small charities without substantial Trust Funds to survive on the basis of making grants from small amounts raised through traditional fund-raising methods, and the appointment of a professional fund raiser to solicit funds from Trusts, even on a part-time basis, had proved to be unrealistic as had attempts to create Regional Officers on a part-time basis with the possible exception of Scotland and the North.
At the same time SPCK Worldwide was not without its problems, despite a mailing list of 8,000-9,000 churches and individuals, mainly Anglican, and much parish loyalty. Rising costs there too were taking their toll as publishing struggled for profitabiity and and the number of their bookshops was cut buy a third, so when the search began for alliances with other organisations of similar interests Feed the Minds was an obvious first. The result was the re-creation of an FTM, independent of both USCL and SPCK, with SPCK Worldwide (Mission) following USCL and feeding its programme through FTM, with one team, one FTM Grants Committee. FTM Mark 3 had arrived.