This answer is currently incomplete. This message will self destruct when the answer is complete.
1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
Argumentative attitudes and poor behavior are not and cannot be automatically excused because a user posts top notch questions and answers. My responsibility as a moderator entrusts me with making this a place that people want to visit and learn about the topic. Whether the post is good or not is irrelevant to users that have to deal with the poster's bad behavior. I realize there is a line between correcting and arguing, but I think in most cases the intent is clear. As a mod I could nuke the whole comment stream then leave a comment of my own telling them to knock it off.
2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
I would first yield to experience. If the mod was a mod before me (for example, if both Caleb and I were mods) I would trust his judgement over mine. I would then use the opportunity to learn from him. However, inevitably, I would eventually consider myself equal with all the mods. I would definitely not confront another mod publicly about a particular moderator action. Privately, though, I would ask him to justify the action and give me sound reasoning. If we still disagreed and I thought it was important enough, I would involve the other mods. Presumably, the majority of the mods would then make the decision to keep the action in place or undo it. If it is something that keeps coming up then we should make it public and post on meta. We as mods serve the community and our disagreement is only evidence of an area where the community has not spoken.
3. When you see a question or answer with major issues, e.g. argumentative or poorly-written, what tool do you reach for first and why?
If I were not a mod I would immediately choose to vote to close. Then I would inform the user why in a comment. I would then make it a point to see if the user changes the post in the next few days. But as a mod I need to consider that my vote to close is a power vote. It would have to be bad enough were I cannot see good answers coming from it. I would, of course, still comment on the issues.
4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?
I'm here to learn too. Even if I think the viewpoint being represented is not God's Truth I will still be happy to learn the viewpoint. "I am happy to consider completely rethinking my beliefs because after the fear of knowing nothing wears off I can begin a new life filled with the excitement a child gets when playing with something for the first time." That is from my profile. After that, the factuality of the post is very important. Even if the new user thinks they are representing a viewpoint correctly, I will act to correct or remove the content if I think it is incorrect if they cannot prove what they are saying with sources.
5. One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues:
Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups.
Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being able to post their opinions wherever they please on this site.
Our scope has mandated that we include anyone (or group) who self identify as Christian.
How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?
How will you handle individuals who do not have an identifiable group or doctrine?
The first thing I should mention is the false assumption that inclusion of anyone gives specific rights to the quality of the posts given without regard to site policy. In short, site policy trumps everything else. If a user wants to post his opinion he needs to convince the community that his opinion is something they want on the site.
How will I make minority groups feel welcome? It is difficult if they take exception to the resistance they will receive. Generally, minority opinions need to be of the highest caliber. See my meta post here. If the user truly knows what they are talking about then they will be able to make posts with the necessary quality; they will overcome the resistance.
How will I handle users without a group or doctrine? As far as I can tell a group of one is no group at all. A doctrine developed by one and adhered by only that one is no doctrine at all. They may, of course, still participate, but they must stay within current policy. That does not include answering with opinion or with a perspective that was not asked for.
6. What, if any, role do you think moderators can/should have in developing replacement moderators and developing a strong community that reduces the need for moderator action?
SE has already done this job for the moderator. The system awards privileges to the best users; it tailors making "mods" out of users who have proven that they can play by the rules in the first place. That being said, every time a moderator takes action he is leaving example for users to mimic or reject. Rejection is not necessarily a bad thing, but when it becomes disruptive to the community is when a mod must step in and stop the behavior.
8. What are the top two or three challenges facing the site as it moves forward, and what do you plan to do to address them? (If applicable: what have you already done about them?)
As the site grows more casual questions and answer from googlers will come in (are coming in). Usually, those posts stink. For questions, you really only have a few options. Comment and explain and vtc. For answers you really only have one option. Comment. I regularly perform review tasks and try to encourage new users that seem like they might be good for the site and ignore and flag users that do not.
9. Why do you want to be a moderator? It is time consuming, frustrating, and not very rewarding. What is your motivation to take this thankless job?
At the time of the nominations there were a few users who were vocal about their lack of faith in the current mods. Although I don't really want to be a mod at this moment, I do think that I would make a good substitute if the current mods are not elected. I would serve the community wholeheartedly. I would dedicate my actions on this site to the success of this site.
10. How would you handle a non-minor disagreement (not something that can be ignored as "personal preference," "could go either way," etc) with the action or inaction of another moderator?
This is almost exact duplicate as number 2. vtc.