1). By “professional” I don't mean trained speaker. I mean it more to explain the smaller group with in the larger group of preachers. After graduation, I may be regularly preaching in a church and receiving a wage for it, but I promise you, I am not on orator of the same quality. I understand that preachers have been professional (i.e. paid) pretty much from the beginning.

2). I actually agree to some degree on the decentralization of teaching responsibilities. I think that is the role of elders. Whether or not that has them preaching would depend on their ability to teach, communicate and understand the text. This would fit well with the qualifications of elders. There could even be people with the church that can also teach. But teaching does not necessarily mean preaching, and I would prefer to see that done by people that are called by their congregations to do so.

3). Finally, and this is the biggest issue for me, is that it is from the pulpit that the direction of the church is made most salient. Realistically, the majority of every congregation only takes part in the worship service and does not read all the churches documentation (or even Scripture for that matter), does not take part in smaller groups (although this percentage is probably closer to 50% in some churches), nor comes to many teaching outlets (like Sunday education, if you even have it). Thus, the bulk of what the church wants the congregant to hear comes from the pulpit. This includes how the church views the gospel, evangelism, hermeneutics, application of Scripture. No matter how much I may respect the teaching/ability of John Piper, Tim Keller, or Rob Bell I do NOT want them setting the direction for my particular body of believers that I have been called to serve and shepherd. These are the reasons I would prefer to not 'pipe it in.' All that does is feed people in their own wants. We don't NEED the worlds most eloquent speakers, we WANT them. I NEED a pastor who knows what God is calling this particular group of believers to and knows my particular struggles. Bell, Piper, Keller, Driscoll, Chan,… are great wordsmiths they are engaging either in doxos, ethos, or pathos and thus we listen, but they don't know my struggles and can't purposefully speak to them. Paul could not have been the most interesting speaker, just as Eutychus, but he was effective. As an itinerant, he placed leaders to make sure that things went well when he wasn't there. Cannot churches that multi-site do the same. Piper has a seminary at Bethlehem, there is no reason to multi-site – send a graduate instead.

This speaks greatly to ecclesiological issues and perhaps we'll delve more into them as the thread goes on. Or perhaps not and it'll just end here. But ultimately, ministry is people-oriented, you can't holograph or multi-site people, and a preacher, as a spiritual authority of a congregation, needs to be present to be a true authority.

The second, which is a bit more insidious, is the phenomena of having preaching gurus of sorts. This is proliferated by podcasts, posting sermons on websites, big events with big-name speakers. These are a two-edged sword. On the one hand we have an opportunity to experience fantastic preaching, which is fantastic for the body! We get to hear godly messages from great communicators, and the preaching of God's word is potent. But at the same time to reach the level of these preachers (the Pipers, Chandlers, Driscolls, Kellers, and probably at least a half dozen more) there has to be a certain amount of popularity often connected to the fact they preach well.

What is difficult here, is that the average preacher is not likely gifted to the level of these folks. This does not mean that the preacher is bad, just not as gifted or on the same platform. It can be difficult to attain to the level of these in your people minds (and maybe even hearts). Ultimately, it can undermine the local church. If Driscoll disagrees with your pastor on something (say baptism), who retains authority. The problem here is that your local pastor knows more about what you need (hopefully) than Driscoll. But its just as likely that the person might actually spend more time with Driscoll (consuming his many different media) where there is no interaction from Driscoll. This is not a knock on Driscoll, its just impossible for him to do it.

That said, this may only apply to a particular segment of the congregation which I've connected most with while in ministry. We should be ecstatic if your people want to listen to God's word preached more than just on Sunday morning, but it can really undermine the ability for a local preacher to do his job well as the people have feasted on others that are given more of the gift of preaching.

To conclude two quick things: 1) what I am NOT saying is anything negative about these preachers or even the fact we have access to them. Under normal conditions they add wonderful things to our understanding of God's word. 2). What I AM saying is that it can be problematic and even undermine our congregations if these preachers influence our people more than a local pastor does. This is a real concern given the American propensity to consumerism. If not for the potency of particular preachers to influence the country we would not have a need for holographic preachers as we would be more than happy with the various people whom God places over our many churches.

Sorry for the long reply.