I can only convey my experience with the mainstream UMC Methodists in NYC. I went to a Methodist church in NYC and the minister seriously said that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, influenced by the Jewish culture and that the Resurrection might be just a metaphor!!
That was the last time I entered a Methodist Church
You stumbled onto a fruit of the ecumenical movement that produced changes to most protestant ecclessiologies. There's a pretty detailed history on how all this came about.
Study the roots of the YMCA. Check out when the first "open communion" took place and under what circumstances. Look to see when and where Christian communities stopped calling their church, "the one true church" and see how it relates to innovations concerning salvation vs what Church is.
It's a pretty wild history.
I used to go to a free-Methodist Church. I didn't grow up "churched" and so I didn't really know much about the bible or even Christianity. I wasn't even sure if Christians thought Jesus was God. I was in my late teens and had no clue and I was friends with "Christians".
Once I started to go to church I had a ton of questions because I was reading the bible. I wound up church hopping because I was never satisfied with the answers that were given. They were always contradictory and or ignore other passages or just focused on one passage in order to interpret the other passage but then you could just do the opposite approach and come up with an entirely different and seeming "biblical" interpretation. I went to a Baptist Church (different ones), Free-Methodist, Pentecostal, some kind of Messianic one, etc. They all claimed to be biblical and it's true but only insofar as each of them used bible verses to justify their interpretation (which contradict with the group across the street).
Anyway, I remember asking people at the free-Methodist Church what baptism was and got like seven answers with seven different and conflicting interpretations. At the end, rather than everyone just saying the other was wrong they all agreed to disagree as to what baptism was and that was the answer they gave me. They just didn't know and they encouraged me to choose what I agreed with to formulate my own interpretation and the stuff I didn't agree with, to just chuck it out the window.
The way most protestant churches are set up now is that there's no structure in place to keep heresies at bay because technically, to take a stand on something would mean that someone or a group of someones believes that the other someones are wrong and this gets labeled as "divisive". After all, if I said baptism is A and the guy next to me says it's C, then in all reality, someone is wrong and or both are wrong. And it would be "rude" to assume that either are right and so the position is just to be convinced in your own mind and agree to disagree.
But we never get any closer to an answer and if we're honest, we are basically saying without saying, that the truth is relative and subject to interpretation. And that is the only thing that we ever say with any conviction.
We embrace the mistreatment of truth and say we are doing it out of love. This is far from love. This is hate disguised as love. A mere sentiment without "heart".
As we speak, right now, there's an Anglican Bishop that believes just as you mentioned above, Angelos. He doesn't believe that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi but he believes that Jesus resurrection and ascension are all just metaphor. In other words, he totally denies Jesus literal resurrection and ascension (more than this too but that's pretty bad).
The thing is, the way the churches are all structured, the Anglicans can't do anything about it. This "bishop" who is supposed to oversee all the other parishes in his jurisdiction is in GOOD standing. He watches over the flock.
Because it's considered divisive and arrogant to say that someone is "wrong". Dogma and heresy are dirty words in the protestant churches (most of them).
It's interesting though because each denomination has different standards of "heresy" but they still are forced to come up with what those standards are and they are very very loose.
This is why no one protestant group has ever made a doctrinal stance either for or against the various and conflicting rapture teachings.
This is why you can go to a Methodist Church and learn things that Wesley would have considered heretical to his teachings (the Methodists are traced back to Wesley - he had a bible study group that "methodically" studied the bible and his followers "founded" a church based on the bible study group).
When I went to the Pentecostal church it was interesting because there too every individual had conflicting doctrines and even had conflicting beliefs on what was considered "biblical" worship practice.
All this seems very confusing to nearly everyone that is honest about it and so most people just shrug their shoulders and just tell themselves that all this stuff must be unimportant.
But as you admitted above, there's a real face behind sound doctrine. Doctrines tell us who God is and it's up to us to live those doctrines.
The current church structure are self destructive. There are no stop-gates from keeping the wolves from picking off the flock. Everyone thinks they have the right to interpret the scriptures independent from the Church. And that sentiment is bearing fruit.
It all boils down to authority.
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing
more disciples than John
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them
and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit