Conservative Judaism's self-definition as a "halakhic movement" has become an empty signifier, masking deeper theological and practical tensions within the movement's identity. Drawing on Edward Feld's critique of halakhic authority and Ira Stone's aggadic proposal centered on Jacob, this analysis reveals how the halakhic framework serves primarily as a defense mechanism for rabbinical authenticity while failing to resonate with the lay community. Through theological analysis, historical examination, and philosophical critique, the investigation demonstrates that this self-definition has become unfalsifiable and therefore factually meaningless. The movement's actual practice reflects a naturalist theology where human communities, rather than divine command, determine religious authority. Embracing theological and practical tension—exemplified by Jacob's biblical narrative—offers a more honest and potentially liberating paradigm for Conservative Judaism. This tension-embracing model acknowledges the subjective, relativistic nature of religious interpretation while maintaining meaningful Jewish practice, providing the movement with a distinctive identity that better reflects its theological commitments and operational methods. Such reframing moves beyond the current paradigm crisis toward a more coherent self-understanding that could revitalize Conservative Judaism's role in contemporary Jewish life.