Does female ordination go against the core values of Christianity?

[Skill and Chance]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

[Skill and Chance]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

I agree that’s a very poor defense of it.  The Bible and basically all pre-20th century church tradition clearly comes down against men and women being identical and interchangeable.  However, it also strikes me that  many churches also drifted more patriarchal than originally intended over time (i.e. almost surely those that don’t or didn’t allow deaconesses).  It can be appropriate to point that out, too. Early Christianity was pretty clearly more in favor of gender equality than the pagan societies it was converting (indeed, the early power base was educated women), just not gender interchangeability.

[Skill and Chance]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.