From the Raleigh, NC sermon on 1 Timothy 3, "The Man" Driscoll remarked on how it was necessary for a man to sense an inward calling toward ministry. The man needed to want to be an elder or he wouldn't be qualified.
Driscoll even went so far as to say that "we" will know men are called to be elders because they desire to be one. It's not just someone who is qualified and meets needs in a local church. He has to be someone who wants to be an elder. However that desire comes forth that desire has to be there. Within an Acts 29 or Mars Hill context this may mean that guys nominate themselves and if they don't nominate themselves they may not want to be elders and thus lack an important qualification for ministry as Driscoll interprets 1 Timothy 3.
However, there's no persuasive textual basis for reasoning that simply because it is good to desire the office of overseer/bishop/pastor/shepherd that one is thereby qualified for the role. After all false teachers will want the role even though they are not fit for it. A person might meet most of the qualifications for pastoral office in 1 Timothy 3 yet still be a Pelagian or an Arian, if you stop and think it through for a few seconds.
For instance, did Augustine of Hippo want to be a priest or a bishop?
A little summary here--
If Driscoll's exegesis and application have any validity at all (and I'm not suggesting they do) the Augustine of Hippo, one of the most legendary and celebrated Christian thinkers, pastors and theologians of the Western church, has to be called unqualified. Almost everything about Augustine's ordination could be seen as a counterexample of what Driscoll proposed 1 Timothy 3 said. A more careful reading of the text shows that on a few points Driscoll's reading of 1 Timothy 3 in "The Man" doesn't really hold up on textual grounds and there are counterexamples of important Christian leaders who ended up in jobs for which they did not nominate themselves.
If your sermon leads you to a conclusion that requires you to say Augustine shouldn't and couldn't have been a pastor if you consistently apply the principles you outline from your text that may suggest that the interpretation of the text itself is problematic and that it flies in the face of how the early Church understood the text.
It's one thing for Driscoll to approvingly cite Chuck Smith's axiom that it is better to train the called than to call the trained but it is no sure thing that these two things are necessarily in opposition. It's strange if you think about it because if Driscoll applied his own explication of 1 Timothy 3 to one of his theological heroes he'd have to say Augustine wasn't qualified because he didn't nominate himself. Of course that was five years ago that this sermon got preached.
Given the controversies that seem to have brewed up in Chuck Smith's neck of the woods in the last few years maybe there are flaws to the practice of "training the called", too.
If the Holy Spirit moves in ways we truly cannot perceive or identify then it's not a sure thing that just because a man nominates himself that he's fit for eldership. Now if that were actually true, if it were true that the Holy Spirit calls and reveals who is fit for ministry, and they need to nominate themselves, then if the Spirit gifted pastors in this way (and Mars Hill only ever hired people who demonstrated they were called, correct?) then why have pastors been fired from Mars Hill at all? If you believe the Holy Spirit calls and gifts men for ministry and that central to this is that the man must nominate himself or he's not qualfiied how can you justify firing anyone? Obvious sin, obviously, but what constitutes obvious sin? An implication in this ecclesiology is a problem, if you fire a pastor who is self-nominated (as he must be) and was only installed because he demonstrated the Spirit's calling and gifting then if you fire him for something that isn't an indisputable sin you're second-guessing the Holy Spirit, aren't you? Do you want to be in a position to declare that against previous demonstations of calling and gifting that the Holy Spirit was wrong? And if that could be the case about one pastor at Mars Hill it could very easily be the case about all of them, couldn't it?
I'd propose hopefully that this sermon "The Man" was five years ago. Maybe things have changed. I'm not sure if a Q school is a change for the better or not but it is, at any rate, a change.