What to do with the Vicar

Hard cases make bad law. The vicarage program was created because of the hard case of the Hoover-Roosevelt Depression and a shortage of calls. It was later codified and made part of "the system."

It is, ironically, on the verge of being historical and ecumenical - because what it seems to mean to be is the resurrection of the diaconate. But vicars aren't deacons. Deacons (in the Lutheran understanding of the Office of the Ministry) are ordained into the One Office of the Holy Ministry - but agree, by human right and for the sake of good order, only to preach (and in the Latin Church, baptize).

So a vicar isn't put into the Office of the Ministry - but he is training for it. He is not rite vocatus - but he is rite vocatur: he is being publicly called; he's in the midst of the process.

It would be best to follow the procedure that other Lutherans around the world do and send a man through the seminary for three year and ordain him. He would then be on probation for a year under the oversight of a pastor in the field (as a curate, deacon, or whatever you want to call him). If he fails this year of probation, he would be removed from office. If he passes, he would receive a call to his own pulpit.

That would be better - but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

So what to do with the vicar - this tertium quid? After surviving vicarage myself, seeing family and friends suffer through good and bad vicarages, and have summer vicars for a couple of years: here are my thoughts.

First, the no-brainer: vicars don't preside at the altar, they don't baptize, they don't conduct official acts of the congregation (installing officers, receiving members, confirmations, weddings, funerals, etc.).

Second, the more difficult point. What about preaching? Aren't we a bunch of hypocrites for shouting about AC XIV when it comes to the Supper and all the while letting our vicars preach?

There are at least two good answers to the charge of hypocrisy here. First, we might note the opinion of the Wittenberg faculty that I posted a couple of days ago. If a layman takes the authority to preside at the Supper upon himself, he has no real authority and there is no sacrament. Even if you think these Lutherans got it wrong: how much are you willing to bet on that? In other words, the consequences of the abuse of a vicar preaching under pastoral supervision are nowhere near as severe as the consequences of a vicar consecrating when he has no God-given authority to do so. So it is in no way hypocritical to say "I want to avoid the greater abuse even if I feel that I must tolerate the lesser."

(An aside: for those who would argue that a vicar is not really a layman, I don't think you even believe yourselves. Why don't you call him pastor then? Why does his service at a place end after a year? Why isn't he on the clergy roster? Etc.)

And there is another (and I think better) response to the charge of AC XIV hypocrisy regarding the preaching of vicars that leads to a better practice as well. This hinges on what the definition of preaching is.

I would define "to preach and teach" from AC XIV like this: To preach is to speak words which the preacher has composed himself in public worship directed at the faithful claiming that they are spoken in the stead and by the command of Jesus Christ; that these words which I have written are God's Word in the sense of Luke 10:16.

Vicars shouldn't do that. No layman should. Indeed, I would say that even if they pretend to do so, there is no promise attached to their words. It would be false preaching just as a vicar consecrating would be a false consecration.

But the Western Church has a long tradition of lay brothers in a monastery, for example, reading a patristic sermon from the breviary at daily prayers. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that was "preaching." It isn't. It's reading someone else's words for the edification of the reader and the hearers.

Vicars can do this. They should do this in order to gain requisite practice in speaking before a crowd.

In addition, a vicar needs practice writing sermons. And here is where the pastoral supervisor of a vicar needs to take great care. The vicar should write a draft of a homily on a text. But that draft of a homily really does need to be read through, changed, and approved word for word by the pastor. It must really and truly be his sermon, not the vicar's. The vicar simply ghost writes something which the pastor then edits and makes his own. (It would, perhaps, be even more appropriate if the vicar wrote these sermons solely for practice and read sermons written by the Fathers or an old sermon from the supervising pastor.)

It would then be appropriate for the vicar to read this to the congregation: FROM THE LECTERN. This is a visual and important sign that A) the words are not the vicar's own, B) they are not spoken with Luke 10:16 authority, but C) are rather on a par with reading a Scripture lesson.

So that's my advice and practice for vicars: they don't consecrate, they don't baptize, they don't perform official acts, and they read the words of others from the lectern for the benefit of themselves and there hearers.

+HRC