Names are significant. As we noted in the previous article, names communicate something, a reality beyond themselves, and this pertains to a denominational name. A denominational name should signify something of the reality of the denomination to which it refers, such that an inquirer is able to an adequate notion of what the denomination is.
The CCCC (Conservative Congregational Christian Conference) is contemplating a change to Centerpoint: Biblical Congregational Conference. Nothing happens without reason, and so the votaries of this name change are possessed of their reasons as well.[1]
Defects of the Present Name?
A name change is never contemplated unless there is some perceived defect in the present name. One perceived defect is the clunkiness of the present name. It is presently a soup of c’s, hard to remember, and harder yet to say. There is something of truth to this defect. A denominational name, if nothing else, ought to be memorable and readily accessible. You shouldn’t need to look up the Wikipedia page to clarify it’s name every time you are about to talk of it. Everybody knows and remembers what the SBC, PCA, and OPC refer to when they’ve heard it, and can recite it rather handily. It can readily be admitted to be a defect, yet is that a sufficient objection to its use? To this must be joined weightier concerns.
This isn’t the only perceived defect however. Another is that the present name defines the association negatively rather than positively. Anyone who has taken a course in logic, and learned the art of definition, has learned that a positive definition is intrinsically superior to a negative definition. We acquire more knowledge about something when are told what it is instead of what it is not. When we are told God is eternal, we are denying that time as an adjunct of being with beginning, succession, and end pertains to the Deity. This is a negative definition. It tells us something God is not, and is important, but it still does not fill out the positive content of the godhead. When we are told God is wise, we are affirming that wisdom can be properly predicated of God.[2] This definition is positive, and fills in the content of God’s being and gives us humans more knowledge than a merely negative definition.
Is Conservative Congregational Christian Conference really a negative definition? Assuming for a second that it is, negative definitions, though inferior, clearly can be legitimate and have their place. They still tell us something about the entity they are describing, even if it doesn’t tell us as much as they could if it were a positive definition. The fact that it demarcates and tells us what the CCCC is not should be seen as helpful as well. Every group or society needs rules or bounds. We may want to emphasize the positive core of the group, but it should not come at the expense of jettisoning the circumference which protects the denomination from unwanted influence. The CCCC is clearly not a denomination that promotes and maintains liberal/progressive theology, and that tells us some meaingful information, even if precious little.
I’m not convinced however that the present name is properly a negative definition. Conservative, rather than being a negative term, most closely approximates a relative term. It has a positive content, and tells us something about essential nature of the reality it is describing, but that definition is understood only in relation to something that it is opposed to. In this case, the opposing term is clearly either liberal or progressive, and further these relative terms are really only understandable as they were used to refer to opposing theological systems and methodologies in the early-mid 20th century context. It is definitely a relative and contextual term, but not negative.
If nothing else, the name clearly (in context) communicates a positive essence for the communion, as can be seen in the Statement of Faith, which defines the creedal truths being conserved.[3] We are a denomination that upholds the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy and practice, from a solidly evangelical Protestant perspective.
The last major argument is that the term “conservative” is too fraught with baggage to be meaningfully useful. As an auxiliary to this, the point is made that the term is unhelpful to younger generations and immigrants. It requires too much explanation to give people the true sense to the word being employed, and tends to turn off prospective inquirers who think the CCCC is committed to being MAGA or rad-trads. Obviously, conservative is a term most often employed in political discourse, such that people readily associate a political content to the term. Our interlocutors naturally ask questions about its usefulness. Why should we use a term that conjures MAGA, Ron Paul, American or Christian Nationalism, and stifling 1950’s life?
Forbearing my own judgment of each of the previous topics, it ought to be noted that conservative has clearly often referred not merely to political theories, but also to theological content as well as socio-moral-religious mores and customs. If nothing else, the CCCC is committed to conserve the fundamental faith of historic Christian orthodoxy, as well as to the conservation of fundamental and historic Christian conceptions of social relations and morals. The term “conservative,” in this sense, still has a powerful grip in people’s minds. The fact that you can easily look up “conservative theology” online and find a fairly satisfying answer in the fundamentals of the faith should notify us that the term may be worth conserving. It might require explanation so as to ward of the inference that being a member of the CCCC commits one to 2025 Republican Party policy positions, but it still serves as a term with positive content that helpfully delineates what the CCCC is about, and demarcates it from theologically and morally suspect associations and denominations. Only when the “conservative” moniker has wholly outlived its usefulness, when its evils outweighs its goods, should the term be discarded. I (and many others) are not convinced it is demonstrably that day.
In the next article, we’ll consider the proposed name, and its strengths and defects.
[1] See https://www.centerpointconference.org/
[2] With all the caveats about how wisdom as applied to God and creatures is analogical, and that God’s wisdom is supreme, superlative, devoid of imperfection, and just is God himself following the doctrine of simplicity.
The Saybrook Platform 