Lessons from Hackney: the Emergence of Modern Lay Leadership

History project

To help mark the closure of the Hackney & East London Synagogue after almost 150 remarkable years, I’m researching the history of that community.

Much of what we would now consider core shul work, appears to have been outsourced in Hackney any time between the 1880s and the 1930s. Meanwhile, those officially responsible for the shul, concentrated on religious services, charity and formal children’s Jewish education.

Lots going on

What activities were organised by people outside the official lay-leadership?

• Before the Second World War, young people of both sexes met ‘respectably’ at meetings of the ‘Devonshire Literary Society’;

• Zionist activity was provided by Mizrachi among other external groups;

• AJEX provided camaraderie for ex-servicemen and women;

• Postwar, 71^st Hackney Scouts developed youth leaders; and

• ...perhaps the Scouts overlapped with the ‘Hapoel Hackney Synagogue’ chavura established by the Habonim youth movement.

What would Hackney Synagogue have been without these groups? Their rise and fall was presumably a necessary result of changing times requiring different provision.

In the shul, but not of the shul

Many of these groups' activities were held in the Hackney Synagogue building in Brenthouse Road. But as shown by an argument that made the JC in 1937, the organisations were not quite ‘of’ the shul. There was overlap with individual members and lay leaders; there was certainly fundraising going in all directions; and there was often, it appears, a broad sense of everyone pulling in the same direction.

But the fact remains: external organisations educated, entertained, raised money and developed leadership skills on a collective scale which the shul itself, as an organisation, did not attempt until the late 20^th century.

Ladies Guilds

When official shul leadership was unavailable to women, Ladies Guilds could be ‘shadow cabinets,’ providing opportunities for society, contribution and influence, for their members. Just because we’re ‘used to’ Ladies Guilds, shouldn’t stop us seeing them as comparable to the literary societies and burgeoning AJEX branches of the past. Their strength was drawn in part from their independence from the shul hierarchy.

Those pesky kids

Since the war, organisational affiliation has changed beyond recognition. The end of deference; women entering the workforce en masse; and mass secularisation are among the factors to challenge the comfortable assumptions of shul life. Young people no longer needed parental permission just to meet up in the ‘safe space’ of shul classrooms, to read plays or listen to LPs.

Synagogues which relied on semi-autonomous groups to provide their own social cohesion and continuity, increasingly found the buttresses which had held up their organisational edifices, were themselves falling away.

The United Synagogue fills the vacuum...

The original ‘Jewish United Synagogues’ Act of 1870 legislated that US synagogues should each have seven lay-leaders to sit round a sturdy boardroom table: two Wardens and five “committee-men” (s41) without portfolios.

Communities today must have a Financial Representative; and usually have a Chair, Vice-Chair and Women’s Officer. The changes since 1870 implicitly recognise that:

1. the core work of a US community goes beyond religious services; and

2. the contribution to shul life provided by associated but external organisations, has reduced.

What next?

One quality of the pre-war Boards of Management, with their committee-men and top hats, was that they understood their roles to be formal, conventional and reactive. It was clear what they did and did not do. That clarity is now gone - but this is arguably an improvement.

Our current requirements for community leaders give autonomy of scale and focus, while ensuring that responsibility is taken as Executives grow.[1] The two Wardens are the only obvious link with the Ur-Executive structure of 1870. This expansion has a point.

The onus on community leaderships now, is to emulate the flexibility which used to be provided by people outside the leadership. Yes, Executives have yet another 'thing to think about' in constantly reviewing and assessing whether they have the right people doing the right things. But such considerations are fundamental to post-modern lay leadership.

Conclusion

In the 1950s, troops of unheralded teenagers, women and formal or informal groups, carried out much of the best quality organisational work of shul life, with ne’er a top hat in sight nor a vote of thanks to be heard. Those people are now thinner on the ground. It's for the lay leaders to do or delegate. But help is available: if you would like to discuss how to assess and provide to meet your community’s changing needs, please be in touch with your Community Partner.

[1] A community doesn’t need a Chair according to the Byelaws, but if you’re going to have an expanded Executive, you must have a Chair, whose focus can be decided locally.