I appreciate Bruce's comments. They bring a certain clarity. But, at the same time I find myself in line with Pergy's and Kevin's comments.
But we shouldn't scoff at seminaries, as though they are just a "cultural" thing, a dispensable thing, maybe even a detriment to the church, or to church-planting. The feasibility of creating a pastor-training institute early on in a missionary endeavor should be considered at least as much as any other aspects of the mission. Certainly, if Apostle Paul is any guide.
I agree that the training of indigenous pastors should be an early missionary goal. But we must be careful even in this. Are the men training these pastors qualified? Have they actually served as pastors? Are they simply passing on their "education" or academic expertise? Much of the time the men doing the training simply train up erudite experts without providing true shepherds for God's flock.
Part of the problem is the seminaries became "the experts" somewhere along the line. Not that this is the issue across the board, but many churches bow before the seminary altar, as through the scholars and academia know the truth and other such popery. But it is also evident that the vast majority of false teaching arises within institutes of higher education. Much of the problem lies in the fact that a huge percentage of professors, with doctorates, either have never pastored a church, or haven't done much of it. This leads to an elitist mentality and an authoritative attitude that insists on credentials rather than resting in the verity of Scripture. This is not a sweeping comment, but it is a generalization, and is proven by the fact that very few seminaries remain true to Scripture for a long period of time. It's not a matter of "if" a seminary will slip off into some sort of apostasy, but "when."
As Ruben pointed out, the mandate is found in 2 Timothy 2:2. The church is indispensable. Seminaries are not. Seminaries should be a tool in the hands of the church, not the other way around. But most churches fail to even send men to seminary, not to mention training up men within their ranks. Simply put, the seminary should be a finishing school, of sorts. It should be the icing on the cake, not the whole meal. But most churches simply tell an aspiring young man, "You should go to seminary."
Ideally, the man would be trained by his leadership and brought up in the ministry. From here, the church would send him to seminary and walk him through it. He should return between semesters and serve in his home church. His elders should be watching over and evaluating his progress. Summers should be spent serving his home church. Papers should be sent to his home church to help them see what he's learning and watch for dangers.
Perhaps Kevin's post said it better. His comments keep the focus where in needs to be, the local church.
His comments, along with Pergy's above, lead to one thing that's missing in this thread (or I missed it). While knowledge is indispensable for pastors, the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1 are not based on knowledge or ability, other than "not a novice" and "apt to teach." Neither of these require an excellent orator. Neither requires a doctorate. They require biblical knowledge, wisdom and maturity. But the rest of the qualifications are character based. The overwhelming necessity of elders, (preaching, lay, ruling or whatever) is their character. Preaching deficiencies can be overcome with godliness. But no amount of excellent preaching can overcome a failure to meet these qualifications.
And, to spin of Kevin's comments, we have to remember that Timothy was pushing 40 when Paul admonished him to not "let them despise your youth." As was noted, the exception is exceptional.
