Joseph's Coat of Many Colors

Some Bible scholar wrote some philosophy about what the Bible really means: He talked about the word translated as ‘colour’ (British spelling) in the Bible really means ‘long sleeves.’ He goes on to say that this really makes sense, if you stop and think about it—Joseph’s coat of many colors would only require more dye, but if it were long-sleeved, it would require more material which presumably would be more expensive. My first thought upon hearing this was, “Wouldn’t a coat have long sleeves anyway?” Really, though, I had to laugh, because I had just recently been shopping for shirts, and I had noticed that solid-color short-sleeved shirts were the least expensive, patterned long-sleeved shirts were the most expensive, but patterned short-sleeved shirts and solid-color long-sleeved shirts were the same price. Furthermore, if you stop and think about it, in this day and age, dyes are generally chemical compositions and aren’t overly expensive, but in Joseph’s day, in order to dye a garment, somebody had to go gather about a thousand little bugs and crush them. Dyes were very expensive. On the other hand, Joseph’s family raised sheep; if they needed more material, they could just shear an extra sheep. So, I did a little research, and he’s right: The word translated as ‘colour’ really does mean ‘long sleeves.’ So, I looked up the word translated as ‘coat.’ I could be mistaken, but the definition looks to me a like it’s describing a long-sleeved garment. This is beginning to seem redundant. I looked up the word for ‘many’ and determined that word was translated correctly. At that point, I had a new quandary: Joseph had a long-sleeved coat of many long sleeves? What are we saying here, Joseph was part octopus? So, I went back and looked at the definition of the word translated as ‘colour’ again, and I noticed something that slipped past me the first time: It doesn’t actually say long-sleeves, it says, ‘long-sleeved tunic.’ So, how do you make a coat out of many long-sleeved tunics? After a certain amount of prayer and seeking God, it occurred to me that Joseph was son number eleven. He had ten older brothers. That suggests that most of his clothes were hand-me-downs. With as many brothers as Joseph had, probably a lot of them wore a lot of hand-me-downs. Of course, as the eleventh son, probably a lot of the hand-me-downs that reached Joseph were in terrible shape. At the same time, though, Joseph was his father’s favorite. If you know the story, Jacob went through a lot to be allowed to marry Rachel, who was the love of his life. In the process, he wound up married to Leah, who was Rachel’s older sister, and he also had two concubines. Even though Joseph was Jacob’s eleventh son, he was Rachel’s first, so there was always a special relationship between Jacob and the first son of his great love. Now, this is conjecture on my part, but I think that you will agree that it’s good conjecture: One year, for whatever reason, Jacob found himself short of cash, but Rueben needed new clothes (and Rueben, being the oldest, was the one that always got new clothes). The hand-me-downs reaching Joseph were in sad shape, and Jacob was not going to have that. At the same time, though, there just wasn’t money to buy new clothes for both Rueben and Joseph (perhaps there were other brothers that also needed new clothes). So, Jacob, after tending sheep all day, stayed up at night and scavenged the best parts of whatever garments were not currently being worn by any of his sons, and sewed them together to make the best garment he could for his favorite son. Now, does anybody think that all these scraps of cloth were the same color? I’m guessing not. Of course, this brings up another reason why Joseph’s brothers were jealous of his coat. Each of them knew that their father wouldn’t have made them a coat. The coat itself was a reminder that Joseph was the favorite son, and always would be, as long as he was alive, or, at least, as long as their father thought he was alive.

Christian Music

       There have been some things that I have heard and/or read lately that I find a little disturbing:  I read somewhere recently that "Christian Music" should be done away with, at least, as a label.  One of the justifications for this position was that Kierkegaard said, "To label me is to negate me."  (Was that Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patton?)  Using that logic, Christian music is, therefore, negated by rite of the fact that it has been labeled.  Of course, using that logic, I can label Kierkegaard as a philosopher, and thereby negate him.  To be honest, I think that Kierkegaard was referring to individuals, rather than styles of music.  People are very complex, and to cubbyhole a particular individual with a label that describes only what one observes in a first impression certainly ignores most of that person's character--and even most of what makes them a unique individual.  On the other hand, is classical music negated by being labeled classical music? 
       The same treatise held that all music is inspired by God, and therefore, there is no need for a particular category, "Christian Music."  I am reminded of an episode (is episode really the right word for a sketch comedy show?  'Episode' implies one story of a continuing story line...) of Mad TV where Halle Berry plays a rap artist being honored at an awards ceremony for a song, the title of which could not be mentioned on TV, due to FCC guidelines.  Upon taking the microphone, she immediately began thanking God for being her inspiration, and another actor, whom I presume was intended to resemble Morgan Freeman, appeared and stated emphatically that He had nothing to do with the writing of that song.  My point is you don't have to look very hard to find a song (or songs) that clearly were not inspired by God (and you don't have to look specifically at Rap music, either--the Rolling Stones once did a song called, "Requiem for the Devil").
       Another argument that was made was that Christian music is largely mediocre.  I will admit that there is an awful lot of mediocre music in the Christian music genre.  There is even some that one would have to be very generous to even call it mediocre.  Some of it, however, is very good.  I think that, to some extent, referring to Christian music as mediocre is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  A lot of Christian people accept mediocrity, as long as they feel that the music, at least in some way, glorifies God.  Of course, some people set that bar pretty low, as well (more about that later).  The music industry seems to treat Christian music as the equivalent of minor league baseball.  I understand that, a few years ago, one well-known secular artist heard a Christian singer sing, and asked, "Why are you singing Christian music? You're talented enough that you could sign with a major label..."  The question would bother me less, except that he talked to his agent and his producer, and got her signed to a contract with a secular record label.  From what I understand, she's making more money now, but she doesn't sing anything like the sort of music that she used to sing.  I know of another Christian singer that was writing her own praises to God, and had a recording contract, but someone who recognized her talent as a singer (but also her drawbacks as a songwriter), talked her into singing some secular music written by someone else.  She is better known (even in the Christian community) as a secular singer than she ever was a Christian singer.
       I have had people want to share with me their newest favorite Christian song, but, then when I asked them to explain how the song's lyrics even qualified as "Christian music," they were at a loss.  They couldn't understand why I would even ask the question.  The singer (or group) is a well-known Christian artist, they would protest.  I understand that, but what about the song even makes it religious?  Well, at least there isn't anything wrong with it.  I didn't say that there was, I'm just not convinced that there's anything wrong with it.
       The bottom line is this:  There is some music that is intended to glorify God, or used to praise God, from a uniquely Christian perspective.  I think it's pure foolishness to suggest (and I don't seriously think that it's detractor seriously intend to suggest) that we should simply do away with that particular type of music.  Could we call it something else?  I suppose, but a rose by any other name...  or, to put it another way, calling a skunk something else wouldn't make it stink any less.  I would like to suggest that, we as Christians, and consumers of Christian music, make an attempt to hold Christian music artists to a higher standard.  Don't buy music that is poorly written or sung out of key just because you like that particular artist, or that particular style of music.