CRC Main Page

DUBROOM.org

CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON CHRISTIANITY

PROMOTING (DUB) REGGAE AND CONSCIOUSNESS ONLINE SINCE 1997

- DUBROOM MAIN PAGE - INTRO - REVIEWSARTICLES - MESSAGE BOARDS - FAQ - PRIVACY - CONTACT - MAILING LISTS -

CRC Main Page

SUPPORT US

Support the Dubroom

MORE STUFF

Book Reviews, Free Book Downloads/Reading
BOOKS

CRC Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ

CRC Mailing List
MAILING LIST

CRC Message Boards
MESSAGE BOARD

crc.dubroom.org

The CRC documents the Christian Industrial Complex and other forms of Babylon Sponsored Christianity.

- CRC MAINPAGE  - ABOUT CRC - ARTICLES - DOWNLOADS - RESEARCH - FORUM - CRC CHECK -

CHRISTAFARI's RESPONSE TO "THE ESSAY"

Christafari's "Response To The Essay"

Read "Christafarianism , or: "Don't Be A Rasta, Be Like A Rasta"

Read "Christafarianism 2:0, The Political Correct Update"

INTRODUCTION

In a lenghty articly, Christafari Founder Mark Mohr responded to the book Christafarianism. Here you can find the complete text with added footnotes. This is not the follow-up for this essay, but an analysis of this Response. 

As you will see, the Book Christafarianism has caused Mark Mohr to change his definiton of Rastafari. For him, a Rasta is now either a "Selassie Worshipper" or a Deceiver. You will see Mark Mohr giving an "political correct apologie" to the Deceivers for "lumping them into the Selassie Worshippers category. 

You will see him boldly announcing how he perpetuates his personal use of Rastafarian and Christian elements in order to further his aim of "plugging the gap in the industry".

You will see him prefering a babylonian term over a Biblical NAME when speaking about the Most High.

You will see how he claims that he "makes christians", which he presents as "fruits of my efforts". Mohr says his efforts have to be seen as seperate from JAH works, and even even claims that JAH reaps "the fruits of my efforts" where the Bible says it is all JAH works.

The response also contains a set of blatant lies which in itself explain the reason why he doesn't provide one single quote or referance to back up his many false claims. 

Mark Mohr exposes how he has two different gospels to preach. And how if you critisize one gospel he's hiding behind the other in a very clever way. 

The response reveals the mind-set of Mark Mohr, which is explained and analysed with links to academic studies that back this up. A mind-set that has no problem in using Rastafarian symbology and Christian principals, only to transform it's meaning into a marketing technology. Not even when these symbologies and expressions are admittedly not "unbiblical". Mark Mohr still has to change the meaning of Rastafarian symbology in order to serve his aims.

You will also see how Mark Mohr accuses Messian Dread of illegal use of copywritten material, where Christafari has stolen at least one Dubroom Review and illegally put it on the Christafari Website without asking permission. 

You will see how Christafari has changed that review into a piece which says to forget about "the ever enigmatic Yabby You and Messian Dread, because here is a True Christian Roots Artist." 

INTRODUCTION

Mark Mohr's Response The The Essay With Footnotes 1

Mark Mohr's Response to "The Essay"
Messian Dread's footnotes to "Mark Mohr's Response"
As I am writing this post, I am both wounded and frustrated by a senseless feud between the veteran accuser and myself. Since 1986 this individual has been contentious against Christafari and our core listeners in reggae forums and even more recently in the forum at lionofzion.com.
As the reply contains a lot of misrepresentation of facts, the innocent typo in the introduction is only a funny illustration to which I simply draw some innocent attention. 

Because in the year 1986 Mark Mohr was still in his own words, a "Rasta". He means to say the year 1996.

What Mark Mohr wants  to say, is that he and I are having contact since that time. initially, he asked for my help because of the trouble he was in, and I tried to help him out.

The "feud" came  later, after I began to criticize Mark Mohr for spreading false information about Rastafari and not rectifying it in public.

MORE ON THE SUBJECT

My face-to-face meeting in the UK, recent forum discussions and last Q and A interview with him seemed amicable, so you can imagine how surprised I was to find that for the last few years, he has simply been gathering ammunition for his longest ranting of all. Even worse, he has been "baiting" our listeners and my pastor in his undercover reasoning sessions. Now that his true intentions have come to light I am appalled!
Let me complete the list of "contacts" a little.

I have repeatedly try to address my concerns in private in the period 1997-2001. 

Then I wrote my article, and he asked me -again- not to go public but wait until he would publicly acknowledge what he now finally does in this response.

I have waited from 2001 to 2004 for this and then I went public. A few days later: there was the public acknowledgement. 

I tried to keep my cool and stay humble, waiting for this...

In the beginning, back in 1997, he replied with mails such as that I, "as fan", should be happy to receive an email from a "star" (really).

Later he called me a "prominent in Christian Reggae" in another attempt to keep me from going public with my concerns.

I have tried to address my concerns in a face to face meeting with him, but further then an -indeed- amicable vibe and some private exchange of things I couldn't get.

In short, I have found a closed door whenever I tried to address my concerns with Christafari in private from 1997 until 2004.

Then I decided I really had to go public with my concerns or wait until I'm dead.

Mark Mohr has been aware of my concerns since 1997. He acknowledges some of them in private from 2001 and on. They are no surprise to him.

I did not have an undercover reasoning. I simply asked Bob Beeman about the connection between sanctuary and lion of Zion. I even gave Bob Beeman the quote in my article and asked him to confirm what I wrote.

So yes, I have done research and asked people questions. I wanted my essay to be as documented as possible.

If I would not do research, the response would be that I had no proof of my thesis. But now I have, and not a single time does he respond to even one of them in his whole Response.

MORE ON THE SUBJECT

I object to his constant misuse of quotes and wish that if someone were going to wrongfully quote copy-written material, they would at least get the context right. Given this, I ask that he not quote any of this post in any of his writings on his website unless he publishes it in its entirety so as to avoid any further misconceptions. Now I would like to address some of the issues that he has brought up.
I always provide links and where necessary the original material so people can check out for themselves if I actually quote something in or out of context.

The laws concerning copyright clearly give permission for using material to review, research or criticize. Even unpublished material can be used legally.

MORE ON THE SUBJECT

Misuse of copy-written material would be, for example, to place a Dubroom review on the Lion of Zion website without permission to sell a CD. 

Which is a thing Lion of Zion has actually done. 

CHRISTAFARIANS AND CHRISTAFARIANISM:

First off, I am sorry that he has grossly misunderstood our use of the word "Christafarian". It is not a belief system or sect of faith. The word has only personally been used a few times to my knowledge. First, it was the original name of my band Christafari. Second, it has been used in past Lion of Zion updates in reference to our listeners. It was never used to describe a certain belief system. When I think of the term "Christafarian," I think about a supporter or admirer of our music. Not a convert that has been conformed to my ways.

Mark Mohr is not "a musician with a band and fans" only.

His biography is called "Meet Pastor Mark" for years. I'm sure he's gonna change that now, but it doesn't take away the fact. 

Further in his article he also says how he wants to make converts out of his listeners. He "ministers" to them and provides lists with numbers of "saved souls".

He writes doctrinal statements and articles while he constantly refers to his works as a "ministry" and teachings.

In private correspondence he even referred to his wife as a "his most important ministry".

He considers himself to be a spiritual example for others, as he repeatedly states in various articles. 

When he was having a divorce and people criticized him for having that, they pointed out to the very same fact. They stressed that Mark Mohr is considered a teacher by many people. Mark Mohr acknowledged that and listed his phone number. Everyone could ask him everything about his divorce because of "accountability". 

It is clear, that Mark Mohr does not consider his listeners just that, listeners to his music. And his listeners, whom he called Christafarians, look up to him as a teacher.

The most recent use of this name was found in a question asked in a recent interview that was posted on www.christafari.com. I was asked, "Why do you feel so many people get hooked into CHRISTAFARIANISM?"
I notice how Mohr seamlessly goes over from describing Christafarians into describing Christafarianism. So I can assume Christafarians are adherents of Christafarianism. 
Christafari is a word play on Rastafari. Mark Mohr denies this and says it means community of Christ. 

Okay... 

Members of this "community of Christ" are Christafarians. But I shouldn't compare them with members of the community of Christ, of which he is a pastor.

For then he says, a Christafarian is not a member of the community of Christ. Kind of confusing, but I'm not the one who authors this confusion. 

It's another hole in the facade... 

My answer was simple:

"Our music is original and unlike anything out there in the Christian industry. This unique roots sound cannot be replaced by the latest industry manufactured pop sensation that is on the cover of CCM. We have created our own culture within our fan base. And these fans are diehard. We may not have a huge crowd every night when we are out on tour, but the ones that come truly understand what we are trying to accomplish and often drive as far as 5 states away just to fellowship with us and praise God through reggae music."

As you can see, Mark Mohr says I misinterpretate "Christafarian" and says the latest use was in the quote you see left. I don't see the word Christafarian, I do see the word Christafarianism in the question (previous paragraph).

I also see an admittance that Christafari's work is published in what he calls the "Christian Industry". 

I see Mark Mohr defining Christafarianism literally as "our own culture which we created within our fan base".

Then I see how he proposes this culture as an alternative to what he calls "the latest industry manufactured pop sensation that is on the cover of CCM".

He describes this culture as "fellowshipping and praising God" which seems like something completely different then just a band with some fans.

Especially not when you know that Christafari claims, that Mark Mohr is "chosen by God to be a leader like Moses and David to plug the gap in the Industry". Literally.

Why do you feel God chose you to plug this gap in Christian music?

(...) this is how God works, (...) once again, this is how God works. (...) he chose me (...) this is how he chooses leaders; from Moses (...) to King David (...)

LINK TO THE PAGE

So where he presents his "ministry" as only a band with fans when I criticize this ministry, he presents it as a "ministry" when he talks to the Christafarians. Proof of that and it is right there on the Christafari website.

LINK TO THE PAGE

SEARCH GOOGLE FOR MORE

As you can see, the above question was not referring to a cult that I have started--heaven forbid. I am simply referring to those who love our music. As I am being accused of starting some dangerous brew of Babylon Christianity, I now realize that I should have corrected this Brazilian interviewer, stating that I represent "Christafari," a band, not "Christafarianism," a religious movement. For though I am an ordained pastor, (a title that I very rarely use to describe myself, and one that I never use to lord myself over others), for years I have tried to make it crystal clear where we stand; I am a born again, baptized, gospel preaching Christian.
He might say that he should have said the journalist that his band was only a band, but in fact he is just repeating the same argument which I commented on in the previous paragraphs.

And yes, he might say now that he did not start a "cult", but I have never suggested this in the first place.

I do however remind Mark Mohr to the fact that he says Christafarians are members of "the culture we created with our fan base".

I point out to the fact that he also uses the word "cult" and "culture" interchangeably in his many descriptions of what he calls "Rastafarianism".

And actually, I am only mentioning it, not even draw a conclusion from it.

Another word he uses interchangeably is "gospel". But there are two completely opposing definitions of the word "gospel". 

The Message of Salvation to sinners is one. 

A music genre in the Christian Industrial Complex or CCM is another. 

He "preaches the gospel", but he also has a "gospel reggae" band. 

When I criticize the preaching of the "first gospel" aspect, his reply can be summarized as "just a band with just a fan base", a reference to the second definition.

With that he admits, between the lines, how his band and music should only be seen as such: a band with music. That is the other gospel.

I'm not making it that difficult, but I do think the necessity for a research center with a group of researchers and analysts is quite obvious. 

It is not my desire, nor has it ever to make little Christafarians, out of our fan-base. I simply want to see more people become Christians. In fact, I have always been against starting another Christian denomination of believers (even at the Gathering, a church that I helped plant). As believers, we are all a part of the universal body of Christ. We need more unity not division, a lesson that my accuser should consider prayerfully.
Now he changes to the first definition of "gospel". 

We have already seen how he says that he created a culture in the industry containing "Christafarians", he quoted it himself in his answer to describe who HE means are the Christafarians. They are members of "Christafarianism" in his own admittance.

Christafari's live agenda is a list of concerts at evangelizing projects from local churches from many different denominations. 

But Mark Mohr, as a pastor, "plants churches" as well. There he teaches lessons about the Christian Industry 

LINK TO THE PAGE

and other subjects. His "ministry" is a weird mix-up of "the two gospels" which is in the same time his defense mechanism. Be criticized for one "gospel", hide behind the other.
I also notice that here he starts calling me "divisive". Later on I will elaborate on that aspect.
They will know that we are Christians by our love, not our debates or senseless arguments over superficial issues in the public's eye. You want to know my intentions? I will make them very clear. It is my wish to see our listeners (and all who have ears to hear) come in agreement with the Holy Scriptures as outlined in the Nicene Creed and as I have described in our teaching statement.
This is a description of preaching the first gospel.

However, this very same person also states: "God Chose Me To Plug The Gap In The Industry With The Culture We Created With Our Fan Base Called Christafarianism".

I also quickly note that Mark Mohr calls the Bible and the Nicene Creed as well as his own "teaching statement". 

His own teachings I will fully criticize later on.

To satisfy your curiosity, I have posted our doctrinal statement below so that you can see what we stand for. This writing is also found in the recently updated FAQ section of lionofzion.com:
Cool.
OUR DOCTRINE:

WE TEACH that there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Genesis 1:1,26; Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-3, 4:24; Acts 5:3-4; Romans 1:20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 4:5-6)

I believe that too...
WE TEACH that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, and is fully God and fully man. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH that the Bible is the complete, inspired Word of God, without error in its original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18, 24:35; 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH that man was created in the image of God, that he sinned and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death which is separation from God, and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature, and become guilty sinners in thought, word and deed. (Genesis 1:26-27; 3:1-24; Romans 3:25, 5:12-18; 1 John 1:
I believe that too... Although I don't believe that man has an eternal soul. I believe Jah gives souls eternal life as a gift.
WE TEACH that the Lord Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice; that He bodily rose victorious from the grave on the third day; and that all who believe in Him are justified on the basis of His shed blood. (Matthew 20:28, 28:6; John 3:16; Romans 3:24-26, 5:1, 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 14;2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 2:2)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH the personal and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH that all who come by grace through faith to accept the Lord Jesus Christ are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become children of God forever. (John 1:12-13, 3:3-5; Ephesians 2:8-9; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23) WE TEACH that while without faith it is impossible to please God, the possession of faith does not ensure health or prosperity. (Luke 9:22-27; 2 Corinthians 11:23-31, 12:7-10; Philippians 1:29-30; 2 Timothy 3:8-12; Hebrew 11:6, 32-40)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, the everlasting joy of the saved and the everlasting conscious punishment of the lost. (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15:12-57; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH that all Christians are baptized by the Holy Spirit and permanently indwelt by Him at the point of salvation. The filling of the Holy Spirit is meant to be a continuous experience for the believer through submission to His controlling authority and power. (John 14:16, 15:5; Romans 6:3-5, 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 5:15-21)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH that the body of Christ, the church, is composed of interdependent members who are born again, each having received from the Holy Spirit gifts which are to be exercised for the building up of the whole body. No one gift is given to all believers nor indicates regeneration, filling, or baptism with the Holy Spirit. (Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Ephesians 2:14-20, 4:4-16)
I believe that too...
WE TEACH baptism (by submersion in water) in the name of the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is an outward demonstration of the individual's inward conviction and a matter of obedience to our Lord. We teach that Christ commanded His church to baptize believers as a proclamation of their faith and identification with Him and His church, and to celebrate communion as a living memorial of His redemptive death and as a reminder of present fellowship with Christ and His body. (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:28-47, 8:36-40, 10:47, 18:8; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
I believe that too...
Again, It is not my desire to make "Christafarians," only Christians. I challenge anyone that wishes to follow me in this endeavor to follow Christ instead. Let us work together side-by-side. I am merely a humble saint that is challenged daily by sin. I do not ever wish to lead anyone astray. This is why I remain accountable to local pastors such as Gwynn Lewis and Ken Vroom. This is why I slave to fill our lyrics and posts with Scripture and give our listeners a decided direction in their lives--towards God, not towards me. I simply want to see people become lovers of the Word of God.
Now, again. Almost seamlessly has he changed the subject from being a band-leader with fans to being a pastor.

Is it still so, that I can not criticize some of Mohr's teachings without running into the "band leader", but the "band leader" turns out to be a "pastor" who wants to make "Christians" according to, among other things, "his teachings".

So he keeps running in this circle of two gospels.

Many of you reading this may wonder "who, or what I am referring to?" Forgive me for not going into details, but I refuse to draw attention to such biblically unfounded misstatements. This would add fuel to his flame.
I find this a very cheap reason for the refusal to quote me or debate me in public.

Mind you, he also didn't want to talk about my concerns in private.

After all, everything is just a "senseless argument" and "debate". 

In reality, Mark Mohr is aware that his argumentation and thesis can never stand the test of scrutiny.  

Others understand what I am responding to and have read the texts that have recently been deleted from our forum. I am sure that it is clear to you that when you read a writing like this, you have to consider the subject AND the source. My music, my doctrine, my lyrics, the fruits of this ministry and my life in Christ over the past 15 years reveal the truth. Consistency speaks volumes and the fruit does reveal the root.
I agree wholeheartedly with the statements, that the fruits reveal the roots.

Fruits which are not necessarily good, as Mark Mohr admits and apologizes for in this very publication.

I also agree that it is impossible to separate the "Pastor" from the "Band leader".

But if that is so, you can't say that I should make this separation in my critique!

CAN A RASTA BE A CHRISTIAN?

In short--"yes". I do acknowledge that there are certain self proclaimed Rastas that deny the divinity of Haile Selassie and believe that Jesus is Lord. I praise God for these brothers in the Lord that have seen the truth. So yes, some rastas may be Christians and some Christians do consider themselves rastas. On this point we can agree and I apologize for lumping all Rastafarians into the category of "Selassie Worshipers" in the past. Yet this concession comes nowhere close to justifying this person's slander.

This is not a recently discovered in-sight and the fact that he knows he should apologize in public for it, is also not new to him. 

In fact, it's almost since ancient times...

The mere publication of my concerns have brought him to fulfill the promise he made seven years ago.

He calls it a "concession".

How can acknowledging a fact be labeled as a concession?

A concession to what, and from what?

Not a concession, but a confession would be it it's place, right there on the left hand side. 

While the most common description of a Rasta is "someone who worships Haile Selassie (Ras Tafari) as Lord," there are various houses of Rastafari, and many even conflict with each other in doctrine. For 14 years I went on mission trips to Jamaica and never met one "Rasta" that denounced the divinity of Haile Selassie. Given my personal experiences, for a very long time I used the general term "Rasta" to describe such a person. But I realize now that there is also a growing fringe of Rasta believers that deny the divinity of Haile Selassie and worship Jesus Christ alone. So to assume that all Rastas are not saved could be wrong and such a judgment is unfair. Please forgive me.
Mark Mohr told me personally that it was the transcript of an interview with the Prophet Gad of the 12 Tribes Of Israel Organization which I transcribed and published with authorization of Gadman, that introduced him to the fact that there are different houses of Rastafari and that there are many Rastas who subscribe to the statements of the prophet Gad.

This means, that he knows all of this for many years but never acknowledged it in public.

Are you being truthful when you first admit facts in a response to a publication where your denial of these facts is exposed?

There's another little aspect in this paragraph. It seems to have totally passed his attention, that there was, in his words, "a growing fringe of Rasta believers that deny the divinity of Haile Selassie and worship Jesus Christ alone".

But wait a minute. Didn't he say to the Christian Media that HE was the one who was called by God to "achieve" that? I just mention it...

To further clarify my stance regarding this, I have modified the following FAQs and replaced the word "Rastafarian" with the now politically correct term "Selassie worshippers". The following FAQs now reflect these changes among others: "What is the difference between Rastafari and Christafari"?, The reggae stigma, Red, yellow and green, How to witness to a Rasta, How did you get your calling?, What do we believe?, Bob Marley, and Should Christians call themselves "Rastas?".
And what does this apology mean, when it's described with words like "concession", and on your left even as "political correct"? 

I'll briefly quote from a study that defines "political correctness". Even more important: the mind- sets that make people use political correct language.

At its core, political correctness (...) rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition and its notion of revealed truth (...)

LINK TO THE PAGE

One can laugh over quoting an academic analysis. But think about it: why using the word "political correct" unless you're applying it?

Besides, the whole response of Mark's article radiates what the academic describes.

Mark Mohr calls his "apology" a "political correct" one. This means, he uses the idea of political correctness in his way of thinking.

When he's not simply concealing an unwillingness to acknowledge a fact, that is.

However, I still do not agree with a Christian calling himself a "Rastafarian." I personally view this as misleading and a compromise of verses such as Psalm 16:4. Though I love these brothers, I am in sharp disagreement with such an approach.
When you go back to the analysis of "political correctness", and you may have thought that it was too much, think again.

Here we see a practical application of the post-modern way of thinking of which political correctness is a part of.

Mark Mohr acknowledges, that Rastas can be Christian. That means he doesn't have to evangelize them. He doesn't have to teach to stop being a Rasta in order to be saved.

Still he calls them deceivers and he doesn't see the illogical reasoning behind it. It's perfectly normal to call your brother a deceiver and when one points you out to that, you call that one "divisive".

A NEW START:

I love Rastafarians and I pray for them often. I do not view them as racist or hateful people, nor would I ever say such a thing to the press. In the same way that Selassie worshippers may want me to accept the divinity of His Imperial Majesty, I long for them to truly follow his teachings and worship the TRUE CHRIST. In this vast difference in views many toes have been stepped on. For this I apologize.

Another proof that his "political correct apology" has no real substance, is the paragraph on the left.

As you can see, he still uses the words "Rasta" and "Selassie Worshippers" interchangeably. 

And he perpetuates his own position as being consciously anti-Rasta. Rasta is "them", even when "they" are Christians according to his own definition given in this article.

Even though he admits the difference is vast and the hurt is worth an apology, he chooses to perpetuate ignoring the difference and calls it "political correct". 

When your thinking doesn't lead you to realizing this clear contradiction, your action are post-modernism in practice. Just look to the academic definition:

What is being rejected is the hope that truth exists. Not just that we might have difficulty discerning truth, but that it is not there to be discerned.

LINK TO THE PAGE

Mark Mohr says: Yeah, sure, you can be a Rasta in your born-again situation. I just happen to think that you're a deceiver, even in your born again situation.
I am also sorry for the overbearing zeal of certain Christafari supporters in our forum. Though I just recently entered the Rasta Reasoning forum for the first time in a very long while, I should have tried harder to keep any individual from being disrespected or maligned. This problem has prayerfully been fixed and we look forward to seeing this forum become a healthy environment of respectful reasoning.
When you apologize for behavior of your "supporters", then you feel responsible for their behavior.

When you then apologize for not "keeping" people from "doing something", you're really not only a band leader with fans.

I also like to add, that this "problem" is absolutely not only present on the Christafari forum. I wish it were so.

In addressing the problem head-on, I have decided to start-a-new. I have cleaned out all old posts in the Rasta Reasoning thread. While some may be vexed at such a move, others will applaud my actions. Some times you must do some serious house cleaning to get rid of germs. For those who have been offended by Christafari listeners, these offenses have been removed (and vice versa). Let's start from scratch and behave like honorable adults from now on. 
Of course the deletion of the messages were to prevent people from checking out what was the case on the message board.

Or as he puts it, "For those who have been offended by Christafari listeners, these offenses have been removed (and vice versa)."

In a phone conversation with Mark Mohr he told me many times: "I want to fix this problem now". I have answered him an equal number of times that the problem was already out there, leading it's life, making it's problems.

Some problems can't be "fixed" easily. This is one of them.

Mark Mohr's Response The The Essay With Footnotes 2

Mark Mohr's Response to "The Essay"
Messian Dread's footnotes to "Mark Mohr's Response"
ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN:

You have often heard me quote 1Corinthians 9:19 "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to EVERYONE, to win as many as possible." For me this "everyone" includes reaching Selassie worshippers (those under the Law). I have become all things to ALL MEN so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor 9:22). If you read the context of this passage you can see that Paul was referring to spiritual groups not just cultural ones (i.e. those under the law, those not under the law, the Jews, etc..).

Now he moves on to Christafarianism itself. The teachings of Christafari. 

This is where we clearly step out of the band and fan facade and step into the doctrines.

This is Mark Mohr's "biblical" explanation for his "evangelizing" of "Selassie Worshippers", as he politically correct puts it.

This is where he starts to change into the Pastor. And when you try to have a theological debate on that, his answer is that he is only a band leader with a fan base.

For an in-depth analysis of Mohr's scriptural explanation for his way of "spreading the gospel" (or "plugging the gap"), see the book "Christafarianism".

In short: he says that he goes to Rastas dressed up as a Rasta without being a Rasta because a Rasta would not listen to a man with a suit and tie but only to someone who also looks like them.

This is nonsense, because Marcus Garvey was a Christian with a Suit And Tie and he was very much accepted. It is also an insult to state that Rastas would listen to someone who looks like them only to show them that they are wrong. They immediately recognize this as a "wolf in sheep's clothing method which it is". 

Does he "smell competition"? Given the fact that Christafarianism is in itself a strange mix of Babylonian marketing manipulation technology this is not a totally irrelevant question. 

Mark Mohr calls Rastas who he does not have to evangelize and who might fit the description he gives about himself much better because they don't have to put up some act "deceivers". 

But who is the deceiver here?

Oh yes, Mark Mohr points out that Paulus speaks about "spiritual groups". Later on it will become clear why he says so. For now, please notice it. 
This is why in the past I have used the name "Jah," a term that is found in the Bible, but most popular for its use by Rastafarians… To reach Selassie Worshippers.
Rastas call the Most High by His Biblical Name JAH. They do so because everyone speaks about "god", or even "gods",  but JAH is His NAME. And He leads us for HIS NAME's SAKE, as the Bible teaches us. 

In the Bible, there's a huge difference between a term and a Name. Especially when we speak about the Name of the Most High!

The word "god"  (his preference) however, has no biblical roots. It's a word from pagan tribes which can be used for anything which is sacrificed to. 

The word God is derived from the old Teutonic form gudo which means that which is invoked (or worshipped) by sacrifice (cf. Oxford English Universal Dictionary, art. God, p. 808). This was adapted among the Teutonic tribes in the variant forms.

LINK TO THE PAGE

God can variously be defined as:
  • the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
  • the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
  • the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

LINK TO THE PAGE

SEARCH GOOGLE FOR MORE

I notice, how Mark Mohr prefers to use a babylonian "term" which can be applied to almost anything but the Most High* instead of the Biblical Name of the Creator.
*=A term with an European origin can of course never be the Name of JAH, as the roman pope wants us to believe in the quoted piece
This is why I often use the colors; red, yellow, green and black. These colors that represent Africa were given significance by the honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey (a Christian) and then later adopted by Rastafarians. God created these colors and I find nothing wrong with wearing them in this sequence… To reach Selassie Worshippers.
The reason why Rastas prefer the colors of red gold and green is indeed because they point to Africa.

But why Africa? This is a thing you never hear Christafari about. They don't care. They found a nice slogan to dressup like a Rasta. That's all. 

Why not Europe? After all, that's where the term "god" comes from. The so-called "Judeo Christian Civilization".

Hmmm...

Rastas (and other conscious people such as Yesus Dreads)

WHAT IS A YESUS DREAD

don't really "use" like Mark Mohr . They speak a message. It is a way of "Chanting Down Babylon". They're a direct opposing of the Red White and Blue of Babylon. A rejection of the system that keeps people in bondage.
A Jamaican poet explains it as such: "African Order, to counteract the New World Order, meaning Equal Rights And Justice To All".

Regardless what your stance on Selassie is or may be, the colors are to show BABYLON that they will fall, not "Selassie Worshippers" that they have to "become like a Rasta" and speak about "god". 

Because this is exactly how most Rastafarians and Yesus Dreads perceive Christafari's message when they deeply check it. 

This is why I wear dreadlocks. Initially worn by the likes of Sampson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, this statement has presently become the most common identifier of Rastafarians…. To reach Selassie Worshippers.
Being a dread is something completely different than having dreadlocks. 

Mark Mohr calls it "the common identifier of Rastafarians". 

Again an interchangeable use of Rasta and Selassie Worshipper, especially in the light of him calling Rastas either deceivers of Selassie Worshippers of which he wants to divide himself from, an interesting explanation for wearing dreadlocks.

He has them stricktly for cosmetic reasons, as his explanation of Paulus "all things to all men" reveals, but that doesn't make you a dread. 

Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist wore dreadlocks to scare the Babylonians and Pharisees with a symbol of their separation from Babylon System and the coming wrath of JAH on their heads. 

Today, a Dread would "use" Red Gold and Green, and call upon the NAME of JAH rather then "use" a proven Babylonian "term". 

And a Dread would never "use" these colors to symbolize Selassie not being JAH. 

That's not what the colors say, and that's not what it means to say JAH rather than "god".

Personally, I use the term "god" to reach Babylonians. But I call upon His Name JAH in my prayers when I not simply call Him "Father".

This is why I use reggae music, a genre that many would say was birthed in the Christian Church in Jamaica and was made popular worldwide by Rastafarians such as Bob Marley… To reach Selassie Worshippers.
Again, a strong divisivement between Rastafarians and "the Christian Church". An interchangeable use of "Rasta" and "Selassie Worshippers". In contrast with "Christian" on the other hand. A Rasta, in Mark Mohr's "political correct update" is either a "Selassie Worshipper" or a "Deceiver". In both cases, he opposes them to the "Christian Church".

Which Christian Church? 

Certainly not the "Universal Brotherhood of Christ", of which he acknowledges "a growing fringe of Rastafarians" to have a place. 

And Reggae is not born in the "Christian Church".* It is born in JAMAICA. Many people attributed to this. The people of the world owe THE PEOPLE OF JAMAICA enormous gratitude for the gift of REGGAE MUSIC. 

It has gone international, but every non-Jamaican Reggae Artist (I am one) will always respect that Roots to the fullness. And not limit it to some vague term as "The Christian Church". For it was not the Universal Body Of Christ which gave birth to Reggae. It was (AND IS) the people of Jamaica, whether they "go a church" or "stay a yard". 

*= Somebody I know once had his Internet signature quoting Mark Mohr stating how the Christian Church gave birth to Reggae to which he commented with "I finally know where the term slackness comes from then" for which he was threatened with a lawsuit. Although I am not a fan of slackness at all, I do know that it has always been a part of Reggae as much as the spiritual aspect has been there.
This is why I use the image of the Lion of Judah and named my record company "Lion of Zion". Initially found in Revelation 6 and used to describe Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, this image has since been adapted by Ethiopia, and later the Rastafarians… To reach Selassie Worshippers.
Ethiopian Orthodox view of Selassie is that he symbolizes the coming reign of JAH.

That's why he is called Lion of Judah or "Ikon of Christ In His Kingly Character". 

It is by no means an Ethiopian adaption of Revelation 6. Revelation 6 is a reference to the Book of Enoch, just like the Ethiopian Emperors are.

It's older. A spiritual significance which is very important but never acknowledged by Christafari.

And, just like all the Rastafarian and Christian elements you can recognize in Christafarianism, the original meaning an significance are either ignored to corrupted.

How can you possibly "use" the Ethiopian Image of the Lion of Judah to "reach" Selassie Worshippers?

The only logic behind it can be found back in marketing books. Not in the Bible.

I am not ashamed of these actions, for to adopt such things is not a sin. It is not like I am praying to Ras Tafari (Selassie) or smoking marijuana as a sacrament. I am simply being "all things to all men" so that "for the sake of the gospel I might win some." And through the work of the Holy Spirit I have won some. As you will see later in this writing, this is where the real contention begins.
For an in-depth analysis of this particular way on interpretation the Bible, I refer to my book Christafarianism. 

In the meantime it is clear, that this whole situation is not about a band with fans.

And Mark Mohr's "response" also doesn't sound like that anymore, either. 

As a pastor, he "plants churches" and "makes Christians" (not Rastafarians).

His outward appearance and transforming of Rastafarian symbology into something Christafarian are the marketing tools for which he defends himself by saying that it is only a band with fans. 

But in the same time he has a complete biblical interpretation around it.

And he stresses the fact that he has taken away all the things he calls "Sinful".

The combination of the Band Leader with the fans and the Pastor planting churches and  isn't so far-sought from my side, but rather well hidden from his part.  

Mark Mohr got this philosophy from the Sanctuary Movement. Friend and foe admit this. 

He was ordained as a pastor in this same movement. This enables him to plant churches and to "create a culture with the fans". 

The sanctuary movement comes out of the Satanistic heavy metal culture and -perhaps unwittingly- inspired Mark Mohr to treat Rastafarians like Satanists.

When you exchange "metal" for "reggae" and "Satanistical metaller" for "Rastafarian" (or "Selassie Worshipper"), this becomes unmistakably clear, though, and the house of cards begins to fall. 

From a really in-depth analysis of the Sanctuary movement, I quote the following:

Sanctuary members then sought to discern what Christ's lordship over what Christians wear means when reaching out to people associated with the heavy metal subculture. They tried to demonstrate "concrete situational discernment." Christ's lordship in light of dress and appearance, both within Christian culture and outside it, was really the important obsession for church members.

LINK TO THE PAGE

And this is indeed where the contention begins.

I find the fact that Mark Mohr treats Rastafarians like Satanists very offensive. 

That he makes JAH say so by giving this a biblical explanation and presenting it as "making Christians" I find straight out blasphemic.

This is exactly why I pointed out to the fact that there are Rastas who do not fit Mohr's description of "people who have to hear the Gospel through my Rasta Imitation".

For years, and years, I humbly pointed out to this fact. To make him realize what he was doing! 

Now he has to admit that not all Rastas are "Selassie Worshippers". He even planted a church with a Rasta in Trinidad. 

But still he calls them "Deceivers" and refuses to be a part of it. Instead he clearly identifies with "The Christian Church". 

He stresses his differentiation by using the theology of "Sanctuarism" to "reach the Satanists". 

Just like the people at Sanctuary do not want to be a Satanist, Mark Mohr does not want to be a Rasta and instead wants to reach them. Like the people at Sanctuary are trying to reach the Satanists.

Unfortunately, the whole theology of Christafari is based on Sanctuary and the activitities mainly take place within the Christian Industrial Complex too. 

Mark Mohr treats Rastas as Satanists and his acknowledgement of the fact that there are Rastas who he would consider as "a brother in Christ" has not made him realize this.

The tragedies that follow as a result of his "created culture" are numerous. 

They started soon after Christafari left the grounds of BIOLA UNIVERSITY and "encountered" the first Rastas. 

The tragedies grew analogue with the "plugging of the gap in the Christian industry". 

And they will continue to grow as long as Mark Mohr keeps teaching his "ways of spreading the gospel".

The Christafari Message Boards were a tip of the proverbial iceberg. 

The tragedies have come to a proportion in the year 2004, that deleting a forum surely doesn't "fix the problem".

Because it starts right there, with the first posting. The "Response of Mark Mohr To The Essay". 

In it, he "boldly" announces that Rastafarians for him now are either Selassie Worshippers or Deceivers and he apologizes to the Deceivers for lumping them in the Category of Selassie Worshippers.

Then he claims God chose him to "plug the gap". He is called to be a leader in evangelizing to the Rastas. 

But when he is confronted by another iceberg, namely that of the "growing fringe of Rasta believers that deny the divinity of Haile Selassie and worship Jesus Christ alone", he is surprised! 

He surely wasn't any part of that. He was to busy calling them deceivers and treating them like Satanists. And people who were trying to tell this to him were silenced and are silenced until this day.

I have numerous private responses to my essay in which people express their total agreement with me but say that they prefer to try to tell this to Mark Mohr personally. 

I wish them a lot of success from this place. A place with a history of seven years doing exactly that.

I really don't want to say too much about the reason why Mark Mohr calls Rastas whom HE acknowledges as Christian "Deceivers".

But if he acknowledges that these "brothers in Christ" as he calls them are born again in the Holy Spirit, he says with that, that the Holy Spirit gives birth to Deceivers.

I don't believe that JAH creates deceivers. And that is indeed exactly where the real contention begins.

OFFENDING RASTAS:

Over a month ago I wrote a Christafari update that spoke of our last performance in Amsterdam while on my band's European Tour; " And God saved the best show for last," I wrote, "for it was in Amsterdam where even Rastas held up their hands after the sinners prayer!"

Mohr only responds to examples which he has been confronted with. Not really the other ones. This is an indication that he is living in an ivory tower and has absolutely no idea what's going on outside of this little world.

You can also see how the stories about the long list of "saved souls" needs a little side noting. 

During a "tour", at the last concert "even Rastas held up their hands". And Mohr was actually quite surprised. 

Every time something like this happens, Mohr speaks his of his surprise. Remember the "growing fringe" he didn't notice? Here's another one...

I should have clarified in this writing that the individuals were "Selassie Worshippers". Please forgive me. But I will not apologize for leading the audience (including these Rastas) in the sinner's prayer.
How did he know they were "Selassie Worshippers"? Did he speak to them from the stage and did he listen? 

Or did he look to the "common identifier of Rastafarians"?

No, he only realizes that he should have called them "Selassie Worshippers" because he can not argue against the criticism that he receives for his facade.

You can also see how he has not really an urge to be accurate in his statements. "Leading the audience in the sinners prayer"? All of them?

You see, it's very easy to say things. Easy to say that you're saving souls as a daily occupation. It's another thing to actually do it.

Most Christafari concerts are not Christafari concerts at all. They are being invited by local churches who are doing the best they can to reach out to their surrounding. Then they invite Christafari to reach out to their neighbors. Christafari takes the mike and speaks the evangelical correct language and considers that to be their work.

Do you even hear a thing about people who invite them? No. You only hear about the many souls who are saved by Christafari. 

This is also a marketing technique, straight out of the book of the televangelists!

It makes people think that they want to invite Christafari. Or support them with money for the mission work they do.

It's all about "plugging the gap in the industry".

Mark Mohr's Response The The Essay With Footnotes 3

Mark Mohr's Response to "The Essay"
Messian Dread's footnotes to "Mark Mohr's Response"
In his host of hurtful words, the writer has accused me of lumping all Rastas into one category. Yet in his tirade, he then went on to lump all Christafarians (as if there is such a thing) and evangelicals into the same category, grossly ignoring the vast differences between each of our listeners.
Now that Mark Mohr apologized to the Deceivers for lumping them in the Selassie Worshippers category, he continues with a tactique we often see with little children. 

For some reason, he claims that I "lump all Christafari listeners into the same category". 

He doesn't say how and where. 

Again he claims a thing without backing it up, telling his readers they have to trust him. 

Hmm...

Here the real reason why Mohr refuses to quote me comes to the surface.

As he already admits, he doesn't want his readers to check for themselves if his claims are true.

He calls it a copyright infringement when I quote him in accordance with the US laws on copyright to show my readers where I get my info from.

He doesn't tell his readers how he stole a Dubroom Review and put it on the Lion of Zion website without even asking permission. 

Don't bother looking for it, though. 

It has been replaced with a review that calls on the reader to forget about the "ever enigmatic Yabby You and Messian Dread" and choose "a true Christian roots artist." 

But what about Christian Dub artists? Besides Christafari's one release (DUB Sound&Power) and the ever enigmatic Yabby You and Messian Dread, many have searched long and hard for a true Christian roots artist that is devoted to DUB 100% of the time. Search no longer: introducing Solomon Jabby, AKA "The Dub Revelator."

LINK TO THE PAGE

Mark Mohr calls Christian Rastafarians deceivers, and Yesus  Dreads "ever enigmatic". 

He's not a Rasta, being a Yesus Dread is an enigma for him, but he claims that God chose him to reach the Rastas.

Yabby You and Messian Dread. They are an enigma for Mark Mohr. 

Is that because both artists incidentally don't happen to have any interest in being sold on "Lion of Zion"?

Just like the unsubstantial claim that I call myself a Rasta. A lie which is being parroted by people who take Mark Mohr for his word. But nobody can give the quotes that would back up Mohr's claims.

Mohr's claims that I "lump all Christafari listeners in the same category" are just as  unsubstantiated. 

Christafari has performed at secular clubs, Rastafarian festivals, reformed Mormon conferences, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Covenant, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Four Square, Catholic and non denominational churches (to just name a few). Our listeners come from all walks of life, various doctrinal stances, different denominations and very few of them even have dreadlockes. This double standard is a blatant flaw in his hypocritical essay.

The "flaw" is so blatant that he can't provide one single quote.

He says Christafari plays at many churches and even sometimes outside of the Christian Industrial Complex.

So what?

I have reported on Christafari's performance at Sunsplash Tour, for example.

He now says that I don't mention he has played on tours like Sunsplash and calls it a "blatant flaw" and sign of hypocrisy.

His main argument for that is that he calls his listeners "Christafarians". 

For a definition of Christafarians he points out to an interview where he refers to his fans. 

So everybody who listens to Christafari is a fan?

No, because in other publications he says that Christafarians are members of the "Community of Christ". 

But in this description of the Christafarians he stresses that they are not only Christians and when they are Christians they come from different denominations.

Here's the Band Leader again, hiding the Pastor for too much critique.

The point is, as we have seen before, that Mark Mohr has two gospels to spread. The first one is his message of "Be like a Rasta, but don't Be a Rasta", and the second one is simply "buy my music or visit my concerts".

When I criticize his teachings concerning "being all things to all men", the first gospel, he responds by saying that he's performing for aaaaall kinds of people. The second gospel. Plugging the Gap in the Industry.

And even worse, my accuser is so frustrated that I had lumped all Rastas into the same category that he overlooked the fruit of my efforts. People are getting saved. Selassie worshippers are regularly coming to Christ.
Now he changes back to be a pastor again. Now he wants to change all those Christafarians (see the list in the previous paragraph) into Christians.

Mohr seems to think my main frustration is that he "lumped all Rastas into the same category". And therefore he makes his own categories: Selassie Worshippers and Deceivers. Now I can't say anymore that he lumps all Rastas into the same category, and they're still all baaaad.

Problem fixed...

My problem, one of my main concerns, however is written in the paragraph on the left.

It's easily overlooked. But let me quote him.

"the fruit of my efforts. People are getting saved."

Forget about the churches that invite him. Forget about the thousands of people who send him thousands of dollars. Forget about the thousands of people who pray for him. Forget about giving praises to JAH.

Indeed. Mohr's efforts. Mohr's fruits. People get saved.

But it's not about that, it's about a band with fans, right?

What is it?

Which gospel will Mark Mohr choose in the end?

His efforts, or JAH