Rael Levinsohn had some thoughtful questions. Due to the importance of the subject matter and the length of my answers I have decided to feature this as an independent entry.
Following are his questions and my thoughts on them:
1) Would it be fair to say that Centrists are the defacto "gedolim" of the modern orthodox world, eg like the YU Roshei Yeshiva.
I’m not sure how you would define Gadol In fact, I’m not sure that all Centrists have the same definition of a Gadol. Bearing that in mind I would think that the following is true. Virtually all people that are considered Gedolim by Charedim are equally considered as such by Centrists. Rav Moshe Feinstein is the prime example of that. But none of the people Centrists consider Gedolim are considered such by Charedim. The biggest 20th century Gadol of Centrism by far is Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik... to a Charedi.... NOT a Gadol. But in lieu of a precise definition of the term Gadol I would say that Centrist Gedolim are those who identify in at least a minimal way with the philosophy of TuM, meaning that they at least accept an intrinsic value to Limudei Chol, Such people would include many of the RYs of YU bit not all. Good examples of such people currently would be Rav Herschel Shechter and Rav Aaron Lichtenstein.
2) Could the fact that the reason why a large percentage of MO jews are unudecated / unobservant relative to their Chareidi counterparts is due to the current education system / curriculum of Torah U Madda
I don’t think that is the primary reason although there may be some truth to it. It is cultural. MO Lite is a perpetuation of a pre-WWII value system that developed before the advent of the day school system as we know it today. The MO schools of the type you mention above are an offshoot of that mentality. Pre-WWII sentiments were largely melting pot ones. That is, parents considered getting ahead in society the primary goal and staying religious (Shomer Shabbos) important, but secondary. To that end university education was encouraged but only as a socio-economic tool, not as an Hashkafa.
The Centrist of today is one who has undergone an educational process that includes an Hashkafic orientation. And such people as the Rav, Dr. Lamm, and Rav Lichtenstein are the role models and thinkers whose lectures and writings fuel that study. And that is one reason the proportion of knowledgeable Centrists is relatively small. Knowledge takes work and dedication. Being MO-Lite and not learning is easy and is the population where the Centrist in most cases is drawn from. But Ignorance of Hashkafa is not the sole possession of Modern Orthodoxy. There is more than a significant number of Charedi that I would call Charedi Lite for the same reasons.
Pre-WWII, university study was little more than a tool for advancement. Those who comprise Modern Orthodoxy today are products of that generation... either directly through absorbing their parents values, or spiritually in the sense that they don’t really care and aren’t really serious about Hashkafos. They merely want to be hang on to the Yiddsishkeit of their MO upbringing while assimilating as much as possible within that parameter. There are other factors as well but I think that is the genesis of the reality that exists today. And it is somewhat self perpetuating for those of their children that absorb those values themselves.
3) MO and Centrism prides on self on the lack of Daas Torah concept (as defined by the Chareidim). In this day and age is this not effecting them negatively, for then the proper reverence for Gedolim is not inculcated and Gedolim are not considered part of ones day to day life. Also MO pride themselves on certain degree of skepticism and free thinking. However the reality is that attitude often ends many people up with lesser faith and lesser commitment, because to “free think” a person must have the necessary background which many MO lack.”
The degree to which Centrists do not accept Daas Torah is limited to how it is defined and who happens to be defining it. There is a major difference between Centrists and Charedim here. To a Charedi Daas Torah applies to everything in one’s life. This is similar to the way a Chasid looks at his Chasidic Rebbe. For example A Charedi will ask his Gadol a Shaila about whether he should go to college and a Centrist will not. This is key. Centrists look at Hashkafos as allowing a more personal thought process while Charedim do not and look to a Gadol, and accept his words on Hashkafa to be immutable.
This of course leads Charedim to vest upon their Gedolim defacto infallibility (while paying lip service to his humanity by agreeing that he is human and subjet to human error). The lesser stature of non-Gedolim thus confers upon a Gadol an aura of infallibility. To a Centrist, a Gadol is given this kind of weight when it comes to Psak Halacha. As to statements that are in the category of advice on personal and family matters, or matters of Hashkafa, a Centrist will give his Gadol’s views great weight but not consider those words inviolable. For example I have disagreed with my own rebbe’s views on how to approach the situation between Palestinians and Israelis. I have tended to side more with Charedi views on that issue and have been far more pacifist in my views than Rav Aaron.
I do not agree with your characterization as Centrists being free thinkers. We are bound by the same rules as Charedim as to matters of belief. But what I would say is that we do not deny questions when they occur to us. We try and seek answers that satisfy those questions as best we can without resorting to disbelief. This is another major difference between Centrists and Charedim. Charedim will deny any question that disagrees with mainstream thinking on a given issue. This is what accounts for the current controversy with Nosson Slifkin's writing. Charedim who once accepted views about scientific matters that were not mainstream but well documented in Rishonim, immediately dropped those views when a Gadol said those views are not acceptable today. Centrists do not view this to be the final word on the matter precisely because it is Hashkafic and it is backed up by Rishonim and Gedolei Ha’achronim and the refusal to consider a Gadol as infallible in such views especially when there is so much written by earlier generations of Gedolim and Poskim in support of those views and in disagreement with that Gadol.
