Not off topic at all, greenteeth. I was looking forward to replying to your comments, but I got distracted with all the other issues. (I don’t seem to be doing a very good job of keeping up with the questions in this thread.)
First off, I know absolutely nothing about the Congregational Methodists. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. A quick Google search for “congregational methodists” [in quotes] tells me that they joined the Congregational Church in 1892, which formed the Congregational Christian Churches in 1931, which in turn became part of the United Church of Christ in 1957. I find this news particularly depressing, as I have an unrequited crush on a UCC girl, about which I was able to console myself only by telling myself that it would never work out anyway, owing to our having completely seperate denominational traditions.
Now to preaching.
I’d say it varies a lot. There is a certain style of preaching I’ve found in many concervative non-denominational churches (probably like the “Bible” churches you’ve been to) that involves very close parsing of Scripture, especially the Epistles. There is something to be said for taking the Bible so seriously, but I find this style tiresome after a while, and I think it leads to over harmonizing differences between text. I’ve never heard a United Methodist preach that way, but some may.
My pastor in DC is excelent, but typical in style. Last Sunday he preached a wonderful Advent sermon. He took the lectionary text on John the Baptist, and used it to challenge us about the ways in which we, like JBap, witness to Christ and his coming Kingdom, either faithfully or unfaithfully. It was very biblical, even though he didn’t spend a lot of time actually discussing the text of the Scripture.
OTOH, my pastor in college, in Arkansas, used a lot of Scripture texts in his sermons. He would use the Scripture lesson that was read to develop a theme, which he would then use to pul in three other passages which would not be read, but which were printed in the bullitin. This wasn’t “bible study,” nor did he try to harmonize differing passages. Usually the three other passages were not ones that you would ever think of as relating to the primary lesson. It created a sort of a “layering” effect that really showed how different passages of Scripture can relate on many levels. Sorry I can’t remember a good example to describe it.
But my pastor in Colorado (where I lived last year between college and seminary), well . . . God bless her, she’s good pastor and has many gifts for ministry, but you could be describing her preaching. (And might be, if you vacation in Colorado like so many other Texans!)
And sqweels, I’m not sure how you can be a Christian if you think the Bible is a buncha crap. You certainly don’t have to take it literally, but if you don’t think it has any value (my interpretation of “buncha crap”) I’m not sure what beliefs you would have that could be described as Christian, or what you would base them on.
Now, finally to heresy and doctrine. Sanders asked:
Well, Polycarp already helped answer the second question. (Hope you can return soon, Poly!) The answer to the first question is that although United Methodist preachers have, in practice, more freedom to speak their mind from the pulpit than preachers of almost any other denomination, in theory, any United Methodist, lay or clergy, can be charged with preaching doctrines contrary to the established doctrinal standards of the church. Those standards are the Methodist Articles of Religion, the EUB Confession of Faith, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, and his Standard Sermons. (See here for the Articles and Confession, plus the “General Rules,” which are equally unchangeble, although they clearly relate to the nature of Methodist Societies within the Church of England, rather than to independant Methodist churches.)
Unfortunately, I don’t have my Book of Discipline with me over Christamas, so I can’t quote the specifics of the necessary charge or go into great detail about the judicial process. (I’m sure everyone reading is breathing a sigh of relief!) Basically, someone has to decide to complain, and to bring formal charges. If that happens, the immediate superior to the accused (pastor in the case of a layperson, DS in the case of a pastor) has the duty to try to bring about reconciliation without the necessity of a church trial. If this fails, an investagative commitee holds a hearing to decide if a trial is warrented, and if they decide, a church trial is held. The Constitution of the UMC guarantees the right to due process and appeal. I forget the details of a trial, but the trial commitee can determine the severity of the penalty, with the most extreme being termination of ordination (in the case of an deacon or elder) and removal from membership in the UMC. (There is no provision for excommunication or a ban.) Church trials have been held for other issues in recent years, but I don’t think there have been any trials for heresy in many decades, but I could be wrong.
Now, about those standards of doctrine. They are designed to provide a basic framework of the most fundamental Christian beliefs and the distinctive elements of Methodist tradition. You cannot be charged with preaching anything at all about homosexuality, for example, or anything else the church has taken a stand on, unless it is contained in those standards of doctrine. Wesley said that belief is but a small part of true religion, and believed in the motto “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” You will never, in my experience, find a Methodist who believes that only Methodists are Christian or that only Methodist churches teach the truth. As a loyal Anglican, he believed that the Articles of Religion of the C of E contained the fundamental doctrinal norms of the church, but he affirmed the Christian nature of the Roman Catholic Church and emphasised unity over division. I explained earlier the need for the Notes and Sermons as detailing the essential emphases of Methodist teaching. When the Methodists formed an independant church in the US after the Revolution, Wesley edited the Anglican Articles of Religion and Book of Common Prayer to provide the new church with what he saw as the bare essentials of doctrine necessary for a Christian church. There is nothing distinctly Methodist about them. (That was supplied by the Sermons and Notes, which were not at first held as legal standards of doctrine in America.) Today they seem rather polemical and antiquated, but Wesley was a reviver, not a reformer. Article XXIII replaced an article in the Anglican version that pledged loyalty to the king. This was necessary to spell out the new church’s relationship with the new government, especially since Methodists, like Episcopalians, were generally suspected of Toryism and loyalty to England. It is based on Paul’s admonition to all Christians to be obediant to the rulers of the land.
The UMC has official statements outlining its doctrinal history and theological task. These statements place the doctrinal standards within their appropriate historical context and their appropraite use today. From the latter:
Also helpful is the official statement on our doctrinal heritage, which spells out both our common Christian beliefs and distinctive Weslyan emphases.
I apologise to my former-EUB friends for focusing on the Methodist side of things here. Unfortunately, I only had time to discuss the stuff that matters. 
Let’s see, anything else? Oh, yeah, Mangetout.
I’m aware that it’s being discussed, but I really don’t know much about it. Anyone with more information is invited to share it; I’d love to know more about what’s going on in British Methodism, myself (and not only in re the merger). I think the Methodist and Anglican traditions have a lot to learn from one another, and are naturally complimentary (for obvious historical reasons). The main concerns in the UK would be 1) Methodism being absorbed by the much larger CoE and its countless nominal members and 2) establishment. I would find the latter a bigger concern personally.
Finally, Riboflavin, it’s about time I answered one of your questions. I’ll do it tomorrow.
