A straw man is a distorted form of an argument that is forwarded that is easily discarded. What distortions of your arguments have I made?
I would say you're attacking a distorted version of ordained ministry. You are claiming that ministry is something that it's not.
When one service is defined by what it lacks, it marks the other off as a standard.
But those services are not
defined by what they lack. They can be contrasted with other forms of service in that way, but what makes morning prayer (for example) morning prayer is not that it is not a Eucharist, but that it has the requisite contents to be morning prayer.
Then why is one defined in terms of the other?
It isn't.
Except when such confessions and pronouncements are reserved to a person it is not about criteria, it is placing the priest either as mediator of the forgiveness or worse yet judge.
In confession I function as neither mediator nor judge.
Is it because the priest is allowed to judge the confessing, or because the priest acts as mediator between those confessing and God?
No, it is neither of those things. The pronouncement is made based on the church's confidence that sincere repentance is always met with God's forgiveness.
If it is criteria-based, why wouldn't it be more appropriate for the criteria to be made clear and leave it to those confessing to judge for themselves whether they meet those criteria?
This may not be something you personally have experienced, but many people find it helpful to hear such assurance from others.
Risk is a part of any genuine relationship.
Sure. But we need to minimise the risks involved in people's vulnerability as a part of our care. Again, putting proper accountability in place - such as having someone exercise this ministry within the boundaries the church sets out - is important for everyone's psychological and spiritual safety.
The power of unilateral secret keeping,
Do you have that problem with doctors, or counsellors, or any other relationship of professional confidentiality? If it's not wrong that my doctor keeps my medical consultations confidential (and I am not privy to hers), then why is it wrong that someone's spiritual consultations (as it were) be confidential?
the theological issues regarding what role the priest plays in the confessional act as mediator or judge, etc.
Setting aside that, again, you seem to me to be completely misunderstanding confession, these issues do not seem to be an issue for the people who actually avail themselves of confession. Given that it is entirely voluntary, is it really something you need to worry about, if you don't make use of it?
Certainly from the sounds of it the institution is less problematic than in something like the Catholic or Orthodox church, and even some other protestant sects,
From what I've seen, I'd agree. I chose carefully and was very sensitive to issues of power and control, and the tendency to become abusive.
but it still appears to me to be upside down to the Biblical position of elder/overseer from my studies appears as a secular administrator with teaching being a partial responsibility through being dedicated to study since the exclusive privileges are holy rites.
We have very little concrete information on the day-to-day work and lives of Biblical elders. I would argue that priesthood as it exists today, although it has inevitably developed over the millennia, is a legitimate expression of early church eldership.
A straw man is a distorted form of an argument that is forwarded that is easily discarded. What distortions of your arguments have I made?
I would say you're attacking a distorted version of ordained ministry. You are claiming that ministry is something that it's not.
When one service is defined by what it lacks, it marks the other off as a standard.
But those services are not
defined by what they lack. They can be contrasted with other forms of service in that way, but what makes morning prayer (for example) morning prayer is not that it is not a Eucharist, but that it has the requisite contents to be morning prayer.
Then why is one defined in terms of the other?
It isn't.
Except when such confessions and pronouncements are reserved to a person it is not about criteria, it is placing the priest either as mediator of the forgiveness or worse yet judge.
In confession I function as neither mediator nor judge.
Is it because the priest is allowed to judge the confessing, or because the priest acts as mediator between those confessing and God?
No, it is neither of those things. The pronouncement is made based on the church's confidence that sincere repentance is always met with God's forgiveness.
If it is criteria-based, why wouldn't it be more appropriate for the criteria to be made clear and leave it to those confessing to judge for themselves whether they meet those criteria?
This may not be something you personally have experienced, but many people find it helpful to hear such assurance from others.
Risk is a part of any genuine relationship.
Sure. But we need to minimise the risks involved in people's vulnerability as a part of our care. Again, putting proper accountability in place - such as having someone exercise this ministry within the boundaries the church sets out - is important for everyone's psychological and spiritual safety.
The power of unilateral secret keeping,
Do you have that problem with doctors, or counsellors, or any other relationship of professional confidentiality? If it's not wrong that my doctor keeps my medical consultations confidential (and I am not privy to hers), then why is it wrong that someone's spiritual consultations (as it were) be confidential?
the theological issues regarding what role the priest plays in the confessional act as mediator or judge, etc.
Setting aside that, again, you seem to me to be completely misunderstanding confession, these issues do not seem to be an issue for the people who actually avail themselves of confession. Given that it is entirely voluntary, is it really something you need to worry about, if you don't make use of it?
Certainly from the sounds of it the institution is less problematic than in something like the Catholic or Orthodox church, and even some other protestant sects,
From what I've seen, I'd agree. I chose carefully and was very sensitive to issues of power and control, and the tendency to become abusive.
Instead it is to those who the church has decided are of the appropriate holiness to allow them to be ordained in dedication to church service.
No. Again this is incorrect. It is not about "appropriate holiness." Assessing whether one should be ordained is about vocation;
is God calling this person to this role? That is the key question, not where they are on some sort of imagined holiness scale.