In my small town Pennsylvania Methodist experience, it was both booze AND dancing that were taboo. I remember a neighbor who would close all the blinds before daring a sip of beer. As far as fear of dancing, the Baptists were just copycats in my town.
My former brother-in-law was the son of a Presbyterian minister. He called Presbyterians “God’s frozen people.”
Presbyterians:
Whenever four or more are gathered together in His name, a chicken will die.
There can be considerable variation within Presbyterianism. My Scottish Presbyterian grandmother was tee-totaller and did not smoke, for all her life.
“For many are cold, but few are frozen!”
OP returns:
So far, the only real theological difference that surfaced was that of predestination, and even that was said to have faded over the centuries.
What about the degree of literal belief in scripture or the issue of grace vs. works regarding salvation? The belief of symbolic vs. actual blood in communion? Those are the kinds of things I’m looking for.
From my admittedly limited discussions on the matter, even pastors (let alone ordinary church members) seem to have difficulty articulating specific differences among protestant denominations.
That’s a joke referencing a particular bit of church history. To wit:
In the 1700’s, the Scottish church started to split into what eventually became mostly the state-sponsored “Church of Scotland” and the independent “United Free Church of Scotland”. The split was over the selection of ministers, and, if a congregation really didn’t like a minister (drunk, and no interest in relegion), or a minister really didn’t like answering to a civil authority, the whole congregation would move down the road to a new building, leaving the unused building to the “Church of Scotland” and the civil authority. It’s possible of course because in the Presbyterian tradition, the “meeting house” was pretty much just a barn with windows and a good floor.
So all over Scotland you wound up with a bunch of empty church buildings where “we used to go to church”.
As it happens, these building were often in good condition (the civil authority was engaged in a building program), and they weren’t immedeately sold or destroyed: they remained a part of the landscape and were supported by taxation.
Wait – I thought that was Santaria? 
At least we (ELCA) can still claim lutefisk – the piece of cod (play on peace of God) that passes all understanding. (I have that on good authority – a t-shirt)
Well, maybe. I’ve heard that joke applied to Evangelicals, Baptists and Jews: “Oh, that? That’s the church/synagogue I wouldn’t be caught dead in.” I think it’s more about certain universals of human nature.
I once read a joke from the nineteenth century that everybody in the South was actually Baptist. Methodists were just Baptists that were scared of water, Presbyterians were Baptists who belonged to the Chamber of Commerce, Episcopalians were Baptists who had been to college, and Unitarians were Baptists who couldn’t count.
Yes, it’s part of the human condition. The discarded church buildings though were specific to Scotish Presbyterianism. The joke doesn’t require any knowledge of church buildings – like most jokes, it’s less funny when it’s explained.
Which is because, being generically fundamentalist, and not generically catholic, they don’t regard most specific differences as important. Regarding the two you mention:
Both denominations believe in justification by faith. Neither denomination believes in transubstantiation. Because Methodists are more likely to accept church tradition as a source of church authority, Methodists are more likely to accept the ideas of transubstantiation and justification by works.
More subtly, mainstream Methodist theology suggests that Christ is truly present in Holy Communion, but that is an idea one step more theoretical than transubstantiation, itself a concept so theoretical as to be almost purely definitional.
Both are fundamentalist? That doesn’t match my understanding of Methodism and Presbyterianism overall, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there were pockets of fundamentalism in either, particularly Presbyterianism.
I am open to correction, of course.
Methodists step out of the shower to take a piss.
There are two sides to “small f” fundamentalism: (1) The belief that a few critical points decide if your religion is “Christian” or not, and (2) The belief that all the other points, although they may be true, or false, do not determine if you are a Christian or not. Randomly selecting from the WWW, here are
When I use the description “generically fundamentallist”, I’m spefically NOT refering to those particular five basic doctrines: I’m saying that they accept the idea that there are doctorines which, true or false, are not important.
If you are a “small f” fundamentalist you can be a Presbyterian and still accept that a Methodist may be a Christian, regardless of what they may believe about drinking, drugs, dancing, church structure, or the nature of the Eucharist. And I’m not talking about individuals, (who may believe anything), I’m making a dangerous generalisation with particular reference to denominational boundries, because that is what you asked about.
In fact, today the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in Northern Ireland with about twice as many (approx 40% of the population) Catholics as Presbyterians (approx 20%).
I bet if you were to ask a large number of Presbyterians and Methodists, they wouldn’t be able to give you a valid answer.
The best I can do (raised a Presbyterian) is to say that I saw a bigger difference between Presbies in MI and those in FL, than between Presbies and Methodists in MI, which are nearly indistinguishable from attending services. At least, that’s a few data points from the 70’s.
I would not have been able to distinguish either of them from Baptist in FL, except for that big tank of water. All the FL churches I saw seemed to be focused on Hellfire & Damnation and Accepting Jesus as your Personal Savior.
You may be correct, but that’s not the impression I got from the ministers, growing up.
It really was more about keeping our distance from others in the pews. 
I grew up Methodist and my stepfather is a devout Presbyterian lay minister so I have exposed to both denominations. It is true that they are fairly similar in the grand scheme but there are noticeable differences. Methodism is about as bland and mainstream as Protestant denominations come. The Methodist Church works hard to teach the core Christian values without worrying too much about the individual details. Good works, forgiveness, fellowship, self-sacrifice, tolerance and acceptance are much more important to Methodists than specific Bible passages or theological points. Drinking is one example of that. The official Methodist Church stance is that drinking, especially to intoxication, is frowned upon but that is usually overlooked in most congregations. Most Methodists that I know drink just as much as anyone else and nobody cares as long as they try to be good Christians overall.
Presbyterians seem to me at least, to be a little more rigid in their congregational social structure. It also has that relatively strong ethnic component which Methodism does not. Theologically, the biggest difference is the predetermination ideas that exist in Presbyterian theology. I am told that most casual Presbyterians cannot even explain the theology behind it well but predetermination does not exist at all in Methodism. Anyone can become a Methodist at any time as long as they are sincere about it and everyone can go to Heaven if they practice good works and have some degree of faith.
I should mention that I grew up in a very small Louisiana town and the main religious choices were Southern Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal and a bunch of other smaller fundamentalist churches like Church of Christ.
The Methodist Church was the most benign of those by far. My parents were teachers and most of the other teachers were Methodists as well. The concept of Hell exists in some form in Methodism but it isn’t the fire and brimstone kind like they have in the Southern Baptist Church and especially not like that found in the true fundamentalist churches. It was hardly ever mentioned at all and the specific form of it is left undefined for the most part. Methodists don’t talk about Heaven that much either. Earthly good works and fellowship are the real goal.
I have some fond memories of growing up in the Methodist church. I didn’t like the services themselves much because singing hymns at irregular intervals for an hour wasn’t my thing as a teenager but their youth programs like UMYF (United Methodist Youth Fellowship) are extremely good and an essential part of most congregations. You do everything from camping to going to the movies to intramural sports against other congregations. Even non-Methodist kids often came to UMYF because our activities were fun and everyone was welcome.
I am Episcopalian now because of a prior marriage and circumstances but I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the Methodist Church in general. Most people would have a pretty tough time recalling a scandal that involved them because there are so few. It is just really bland Protestantism at its best and I mean that as a sincere compliment.
Your description of Methodists describes my Presbyterian church in Michigan to a tee, except that drinking was never discussed that I recall, though the outcome of excessive drinking (or anything else) might have been.
There was never any reference to predetermination. I’d have picked up on that.