It is very common in Lutheran churches for the Gospel reading in the Mass to be read exclusively by an ordained priest, whether he be the pastor or some other priest. This is well-intentioned, and is, in the grand scheme, a positive tendency. I could comment on how making the Gospel reading the exclusive domain of the presbyterate is an inadvertent rejection of the office of deacon, hallowed as it is by millennia of churchly practice, but that is not the point of the present observation. Instead, and I don't say this against any particular pastor or church, but against an odd way of thinking that seems endemic in modern Missouri, I find an interesting irony. Namely, this rule is kept even in many of the places where lay preaching routinely occurs, such as seminary field education parishes and seminary vicarage parishes.
To be clear, I do not mean to imply that lay folk ought to read the Gospel in the Mass. They should not. Neither should they preach, though that also must be another discussion. My point is that I find it funny, and ironic, that we let these guys preach, but we don't let them read the Gospel. It is somehow inappropriate for them to read the Gospel upon which they will preach. Are you picking up on the queerness of this line of thinking? It's perfectly okay for a layman to publicly preach if he is deemed by the synodical apparatus to be an acceptable exception to what we claim in the Confessions, yet the reading of the Gospel is sacrosanct, the sole domain of the pastor. The question is, if a seminarian can be assigned preaching duty in the Mass, as they routinely are in the vicarage year, why is he kept from reading the Gospel? Why is reading the Gospel considered more important than preaching?
I will argue against seminarian preaching on another occasion. Here I just wanted to highlight a particularly odd example of what I would call inconsistent thinking.