I am not a member of either one of these churches, but I have always wondered about the differences among the various mainstream Protestant denominations. There are many of them, but for the purposes of this thread I’d like to see what the differences might be between just the two named in the thread title, especially in the theological realm. I’m not so much interested in trivial differences, for example if one church’s pastor wears a collar and the other doesn’t. (unless the only differences are trivial ones)
Pressies are Calvinist, and — theoretically — believe in predestination, the prior election of the saved and the damned; although they rather toned down this message of hope the last few hundred years.
Methodists are an offshoot of Anglican theology, Arminian with a little added fervency.
Baptists, Congregationalists, Independents, modern Evangelicals etc. etc. are plain nuts.
Methodists have bishops; presbyterians do not.
Which also means that Presbyterians will have considerably more variation from one congregation to another than will Methodists. So you might have some individual Presbyterian churches that aren’t too far different from a Methodist church (because no bishop is telling them otherwise), but you’re less likely to see a Methodist church that looks like the average Presbyterian church.
I am a member of no organized religion. I’m an Episcopalian. (Apologies to Will Rogers).
In terms of expected behavior, Methodists don’t drink (or at least the observant ones) and are opposed to gambling. I’ve been told that Ohio’s large and organized Methodist groups, particularly in the rural western portion of the state, played a role in defeating several statewide ballot initiatives to expand gambling.
The statement about variation within Presbyterianism is supported by my experience. One Presbyterian church I was quite familiar with was quite liberal, another was very conservative. Fox News did not yet exist when I was traveling in their circles but the first would have found it abhorrent and the second would likely have been receptive to the message.
It seems to me that being Presbyterian can also be sort of wrapped up in a Scots Irish identity, at least in the US. I’ve heard people say that they are Presbyterian (including some who hadn’t seen the inside of a church in decades), but I haven’t heard anyone argue a point based on Presbyterian dogma.
Methodists never have sex while standing, might be mistaken for dancing 
I’ve thrown back many beers with a friend of mine who’s a Methodist minister. She would be amused to hear someone doesn’t consider her observant.
There are about 15 different denominations within the greater Presbyterian Church family – each with varying degrees of stubbornness.
The latest kerfluffe seems to be over the investment policy regarding businesses that deal with Israel. How Episcopalian of us, our investment strategy is tearing the church asunder.
Each denomination recognizes the pre-destination doctrine but few lay folk can explain it. It seems to me that the Doctrine of Pre-destination is like heated seats for cars in Florida. It comes with the package.
The real differences are generally polity differences and/or how fervent our overall evangelism should be.
And, gays.
I have also been told that, from a doctrine standpoint, we Presbyterians are much closer to Baptists than anything. Pre-destination and all.
I do know that Presbyterians do not enjoy sitting to close to one another in the pews.
Methodists don’t drink in church. That was a revelation when grape juice hit my mouth when my mom started attending. Traditionally, they were big backers of Prohibition, but modern Methodists aren’t as teetotal like Bapists, etc. are considered.
Arminianism (free will in theology) and Calvinism (determinination) are often considered opposites. Many religions support both, but the “stereotypical” religions for both are Methodism and Presbyerianism, respectively. In reality, they are not true opposites, but share lots of similarities. The differences are just more apparent or striking. But Baptists aren’t the strict Calvinists that most people assume they are actually, and there is even a group (Free Will Bapists) who outright reject that. Even the Southern Baptists lean in the Arminian direction, although not as strongly as some!
Both can run the gamut from liberal to very conservative. The UMC and PCUSA are rather mainline/easy to get along with. IMHO, Methodists are a good religion to use in fiction if you need someone to be as generic (in the non-pejorative sense) as possible. Superman was supposedly made Methodist for that reason.
I know that there are differences between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but aside from the organization difference, don’t ask me to name any!
Methodists think they’re the only ones.
That’s Baptists there.
And seriously, although those are very old jokes, I had a Methodist minister last year tell me that Presbyterians are outside the Christian tradition.
The Presbyterians I know, and have known, have been generically Fundamentalist: they believe that, apart from a few fundamental points, it doesn’t matter what you believe.
Notably different from the RC and Anglicans I have known, who believe that the whole package is important, including things like apostolic succession, and the holy catholic church, but not so much any other particular fundamental point.
No difference in Australia. The Presbyterians and the Methodists are now the Uniting Church.
From the Wiki on the Methodist church: The church ceased to exist in 1977 when most of its congregations joined with the many congregations of the Congregational Union of Australia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia to form the Uniting Church in Australia.
In Canada, the differences were considered trivial enough that the Methodist Church of Canada and most of the Presbyterian Church in Canada merged in 1925.
Methodists are Baptists that can read. Presbyterians are Methodists who can write.
As a Presbyterian, I think I can attest to the fact that the bedrock non-negotiable point of faith is that no church related social event really starts until at least 15 minutes past the stated time. The is also referred to as Presbyterian Standard Time, a concept that is exactly the same to those familiar with Jewish Standard Time.
We like complicated governance. We have bodies of elders, sessions and who knows what else. It is hopelessly and intentionally complicated and nothing gets done. The politics of the members vary all the way from dyed in the wool Republican to bleeding heart liberal. Accordingly, those who disagree with this decade’s minister roll their eyes in disagreement during the sermon at the clueless bastard/bitch. If you dig deep, you can find the more informed members are under the impression we are Calvinists and predestined. However, we have free will as to which, the early or late service, that we attend, or whether we will sleep in and go to brunch instead. We are a brunching denomination.
Some of the stuffier ministers claim that all ordained ministers are “Bishops”. Fine with me. Just stick with either the white squares or the black ones.
We all say a generic confessional prayer that varies and is printed in the program for all to say aloud. We have the same number of drunks, masturbators, fornicators and adulterers as other folks, but we do not talk about the specifics at any church style event, that’s what God invented telephones, gossip and the other six days of the week for. Ordinarily we do not end our sentences with prepositions. There are exceptions attributable to sinful laziness of not rewriting sentences poorly started.
We do not have nuns. We do not have priests or monks. Our ministers are disturbingly like Rev. Lovejoy.
We are supposed to feed the sick and cure the poor and have our children tested for dyslexia.
From the above posts we can conclude (well - postulate anyway) that both denominations have a sense of humour.
My understanding of Congregationalists is that most individual Congregations runs themselves.
“Classic” Presbyterianism has a multi-layered governance with Presbyteries, Synods and the General Assembly. Ruling Elders are elected to make decisions for the faithful, while Deacons take care of the day-to-day financial matters of the church.
Many of the PCUS issues today are so reaction to the General Assembly’s overly leftist social agenda, including the gay thing, investments in Israel and an upcoming vote on fossil fuels.
There have been lots of splits and reconciliations through the years, including a nasty fuss over slavery that ended several years after the Civil War, like 1980.
If, in classic comparison, the Catholic Church is the Soviet Union in Excelsis, the presbyterians are the trotskyites: capable of infinite splits, excommunicating each parent cell for insufficient purity, until reducing to the old English ( applied to the Scots ? ) joke of:
“Only thee and me shall go to Heaven, and I ha’ ma doots about thee.”
Whilst it is true that Americans strangely call Ulster-folk Scots-Irish, and that the prots in Northern Ireland are likely to be presbyterian, and likely to be Unionists, these are not universals. Plus there are a number of roman catholics in Northern Ireland.
More stereotypical would be Scotland itself: the Established Church of Scotland itself has been wholly presbyterian since the Unhanged Thief stole the British Isles.
Plus, vide above, there are a lot of splinter cells.
Let’s hope they look pawkily on the Kiss of Peace too.
“Keep yer hands to yersel’, an’ we shall both be friends…”
As did the Congregationalists. We’re just one big happy family! 