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.
Poll
