CRC Main Page




CRC Main Page


Support the Dubroom


Book Reviews, Free Book Downloads/Reading

CRC Frequently Asked Questions

CRC Mailing List

CRC Message Boards

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



Get Print Copy At Cost Price

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

Christafari's "Response To The Essay"


00 -A- -B- -C- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 -D- -E- -F- -G-


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.

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.[1]

(Mark Mohr, Response To “The Essay” [2], October 26, 2004) 

After conducting a spiritual execution, an e-mail interogation and two hours of terror by telephone, Christafari released an article written by Mark Mohr to finish the job.

At least, for the public’s eye…

It wasn’t the first article Mark Mohr had written about me (SEE APPENDIX 2). In 2001, he chose to “expose” that I was an “avid user of marihuana” after which he said I was “known to be an avid user of marihuana”. That was a few months after I decided not to publish my article on Christafari, by the way.

Under the misleading title “Mark Mohr’s Response To The Essay”, the Christafarians were led to believe once again that “the gospel” was attacked by the forces of evil[3]. And as far as there was a “Response”, it was nothing more then a “Re-spin of the interogation correspondence”.

In an update for the Dubroom, I wrote about it:

The response (…) contains a set of blatant lies which in itself explains- the reason why he doesn't provide one single quote or referance (…).

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 (…). 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".[4]

As it turned out later, the article was a piece of bait for the readers and for me as well.

When it was published, I added it to the stockpile of papers which I had to go through for this book.

I had scanned over it, and established that it didn’t contain reasons to change my mind about releasing the book you are reading now. Besides, I was interested in the reactions of the Christafarians as well. The fact that so many saw his undocumented article as some ultimate Truth intrigued me and I wanted to write about that as well in this chapter. So I kind of let it develop to be able to document the fruits.

As you will see it was like Mark Mohr, or whoever is behind Christafari, was committing some perverse mind-control excersize on the fan-club. The readers swallowed the baite hook-line and sinker and gathered around the throne of the naked emperor to cover his nudity. Their attention was driven to a “Skunk in the room” with a dreadfull smell.

In the same time, the moderator carefully deleted all the critical replies out of the thread, emphasizing the effect.

Initially I thought there wasn’t much to write about his “Response” as it was an ego-document. Writing about it, would be writing about Mark Mohr himself. And I would rather write about the philosophical points of view.

I don’t regard myself so important in this aspect. And so I didn’t realize how Mark’s refusal to go into my critique on an intelectual basis, was a way of keeping me quiet as well while he could carry on. After all, I didn’t realize what it means, that Mark Mohr took it very personal.

However, I started to get really bizarre e-mails. Increasingly, there was a focus on “me” as a person. It took me a while to see how this all came from that one “Response”.

I realized I had to go through this myself, too. I had to experience the brainwash just like the readers.

I locked myself in my study-room for three days to swallow the bait myself and turn it into a debate.

I spelled every word, every line, every sentence, every paragraph, every chapter, the whole thing. And then I commented on them. Every paragraph got it’s own footnote, with links and everything with it.

It was an incredible experience. I got physically ill from the mind-set I was exposed to. It was like having Mark Mohr three days with me. As I spelled his article, I tried to consider all the argumentation pro and contra the issues he raised and my own concerns.

I was three days in debate with Mark Mohr. The full text of this debate can be found in the re-post of his “response” along with my foototes.  A book in itself…

And this chapter is not a repeat of that debate.  This chapter is an exposure of the baite that the Christafarians were made to swallow.

By tickling their ears with evangelical correct language and “Political Correct Concessions” to “The Accuser”, the Christafarians are led to believe the most abominable doctrines.

Doctrines and teachings that are so abominable, that the following chapters will make every true Christian realize that Pastor Mark Mohr isn’t the “Elect of God” he claims to be. And his “Gospel” isn’t the simple message of salvation alone to say the least.

Personally, after spending three days in the baite of Mark Mohr, I have come to an even more out-spoke conclusion. This whole “plugging industry gaps”, and the absurd philosophy and culture of Christafarianism that comes with it, is nothing but a False Gospel.

I don’t know if Mark Mohr started out this way or not. Maybe that’s not even important. Because if a false gospel is the fruit, the roots are rotten also.

Is it greed? Corruption, compromises to the needs and demands of the Christian World at the cost of genuine moves of JAH people? Sheer ignorance concerning a music and culture he only knows outwardly? Jealousy?

It’s a false Gospel.

Deception and lies, or as Mark Mohr puts it himself, “misrepresentations”, accompany this False Gospel called Christafarianism. And this false gospel hides the strive to get a monopoly position in some Industry over the backs of innocent and genuine Rastafarians and Christians.

Mark Mohr’s Response To “The Essay”[5] is full of deception.

The deception allready started in the title, as Mark Mohr revealed a few paragraphs later. He “refused to go into detail” to what it is he is “responding to”. He admits his deception when he writes: 

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”.

How can his readers consider “the subject AND the source” if they are deprived from “detail”? The only details they get are from Christafari and the Front Man Mark Mohr. He says: “I’ll do the thinking for you”.

And what is the subject and what or who is the source?

A closer analysis delivers even more information.

His words “a writing like this” are kind of mysterious, when you think about it. It’s not really clear what he means by it. Does he refer to what he “is responding to” (“The Essay”), or does he speak about his own article (“Mark Mohr’s Response To The Essay”)?

Or both?

In case Mark Mohr speaks about “The Essay”, he displays an enormous disdain for his “fans” or readers. He blatantly tells them that although they should be able to consider the “subject AND source”, he’s not letting them going to.

The subject being “The Essay”, and the source being “Messian Dread”. He “refuses” to “go into details”, because it “would add fuel to his flame”. In other words: He doesn’t want to get burned.

In case he speaks about his “Response to the Essay”, the subject is also “The Essay”, as the title simply indicates. The source, however, becomes Mark Mohr’s representation of “Messian Dread” or “my accuser” (“Satan”), as he calls me now.

But later on in his article, he defines “the source”:

I went direct to the source and E-mailed him 10 simple, yet tremendously revealing questions.

And then he uses himself as sole referance in his description of “the source”.

So yes, Mark Mohr tells his readers that they should be able to consider the subject and the source, but he’s not going to let them. He’s practising the authority and the readers “have to obey”.

The subject is totally ignored other then in the title. The Essay isn’t quoted or otherwise presented to the readers of Mark Mohr’s “Response”.

His spin on that is, he calls quoting articles a copyright infringement where he has no “legal” ground to make a claim like that. The laws concerning copyright clearly state:

Ҥ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1.      the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.      the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.      the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

4.      The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[6]” 

It’s obvious, that my quotes have nothing to do with copyright infringements and his claim is therefore unsubstantiated. I quote for exactly those reasons defined as “fair use” in the copyright laws. I provide the evidence to substantiate my claims. And to enable my readers to further investigate my claims, I provide them with the material in it’s right context.

In reality, “Mark Mohr’s Response To ‘The Essay’” was a tragic self-exposure of a naked emperor, hidden in plain sight. So in a sick way, it really was a Response to my essay.

As we saw in the previous chapter, Christafarianism is the philosophy that Mark Mohr created around himself. Every aspect is manifested to the fullness in himself. HE is the perfect example of a Christafarian.

This is the reason why initially, at the Christafari Message Boards everyone started to search for the perfect christafarian and couldn’t find him. This is the reason why so many of them ceized the search after Mark Mohr told them them that there are no Christafarians, only fans and Christafarianism.

Remarkebly, in his Response he pointed out to a paragraph in which “Christafarianism” was being presented as “The Culture We Created with Our Fan-Base”. Not one time was there a mention of the word Christafarian, but Christafarianism was mentioned. And the fans were mentioned too, as well as the culture.

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.

The most recent use of this name was found in a question asked in a recent interview that was posted on I was asked, "Why do you feel so many people get hooked into CHRISTAFARIANISM?"

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. (…)

It’s like this: Mark Mohr allways speaks about Rastafarianism[7] as the culture of Rastafari. He speaks about Rastafarians as part of that Culture. And about Rastafari as the name given to the “Idol[8]” or subject of this Culture[9].

When you change “Rastafari” for “Christafari”, a very interesting revelation comes from below the surface level.

In my essay I quoted Mark Mohr, saying Christafarianism was the Culture of Christafari. I spoke about Christafarians as part of that Culture. And about Mark Mohr And Christafari as the name given to the “Idol” or subject of this Culture.

Mark Mohr went along this line until he changed “Christafarians” into “Fans” and the “Idol” or subject into “I”.

He acknowledged that Christafarianism is a created culture. But he doesn’t call people in that Culture “Christafarians”. He calls them “fans”. And they are “Hooked On Christafarianism”.

He doesn’t mention the subject, though. Not at all. He couldn’t, for if he would, he would acknowledge that his House of Cards isn’t even built at the Rock, but on the sand. Because now, most people who see the House of Cards still think it’s built on the Rock.

When there are “fans”, there’s obviously an Idol. Mark Mohr is that Idol, the subject of Christafarianism. Mark Mohr is the Christafarian. And that’s why he mentions “fans” without naming the subject of worship for these fans.

For we saw in the previous chapters how Mark Mohr claims “being a star” is not a biblical concept. Appearantly, he has no problems with “fans”, though…

You see, most of these “fans” are Christians. They love Yesus Kristos and they worship Him alone. At least, let’s assume that. If they would wake up to the fact that they are being seen as “fans” by someone they see as “Pastor”, the House of Cards would fall.

In “The Essay” I adressed the Pastor. I critisized his theology concerning the way he claims the Gospel should be preached.

I called on the Pastor to take his responsibility and preach the Gospel instead of plugging gaps in industries, at the cost of genuine JAH Works. But in a remarkable response, he claims:

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.”.

So you can’t address Pastor Mark for having “fans” and being a “Star” (Idol). You can’t say you disagree with his theology concerning Christafarianism, for then he says there’s nothing Biblical about it in the first place! It’s all about “plugging the gap in the Industry”.

But to make it more bizarre, in the same time he points out to his theology and being a Pastor as proof of the claim that he is making convert(s):

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.


I will not apologize for leading the audience (including these Rastas) in the sinner's prayer.” 

It’s almost like you have two different Mark Mohr’s. One is the Pastor, and the other one is the Star, the Idol. If you critisize the Pastor, the Idol will answer. If you critisize the Idol, the Pastor will answer. 

And when you buy the Christafari CD “Gravity – The Audio Commentaries”, you’ll find him saying this remarkable sentence (in audio!):

My Bible Study Leader Said "So You're No Longer A Rastafarian You're A Christafarian And That Was The Birth Of Christafari[10]

It’s almost like he’s saying: “Catch me, catch me, if you can”. He zaps between his two “identities” like a mind-controlled slave in a conspiracy movie. And he doesn’t seem to realize it, and yet, it asppears that he does…

The Idol with a fan-base plugging gaps in Industry as his Gospel, has no intention to “make converts”, just “fans”. The Pastor however, “leads the audience in the Sinner’s Prayer”.

From Idol-ship to Pastor-ship and back. To obscure this process for the eyes of his disinformed audience, he hides behind words like “Gospel” without explaining what exactly he means with it.

Close reading of the “Response” shows how the Idol uses the word Gospel to speak about his genre, and the Pastor speaks about the Gospel as his message.

And no matter which angle he takes, everything is aimed at discrediting the the writer of the Essay he claims to respond to. And lifting himself up as “Elect of God”.

This is very interesting as the Essay was an intelectual critique.

The message was that it is unbiblical to strip Rastafarian symbology and other Cultural expressions from their original meaning to make them fit into an evangelical correct “Culture”.

Especially when this “culture” is admittedly a tool to “plug the gap” in the “Christian Industry”! Because then it becomes a mere marketing tool in an ungodly game of Stardom.

Mark Mohr didn’t see this critique as something else then a personal attack at him for being a Gospel Reggae Star with Fans. He didn’t see what was wrong with it, because after mentioning the aspects of “Rastafarianism” he transformed into “Christafarianism”,  he says in his response how the new meanings he gives to Rastafarian Culture were “not sinfull”.

“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”

In his reaction, he clearly exposed how he made Christafarianism to fit himself. He adopts such things”. He plans to “plug the gap” in the Industry with this created culture. And this created culture is to be seen as the vehicle to create a “new movement”. 

This new movement will wear the Red Gold Black And Green, with new evangelical correct meanings, signed “Christafari”. Check this from a November 10 announcement, in which they announced their “New Movement” in the Christian Industry, complete with the Rastafarian expressions in their Christafarian meaning.

(…) reggae has become more and more known for its contagious dances. It all started way back in the day with "Do the Ska". (…)

In the same vein, Mark Mohr and Christafari recorded a dancehall track that compiles a host of "New Movements" from the New Testament. These dances are the "Read Your Bible," "Preach the Gospel," "Gospel of Peace," "Flee Temptation," "Baptize Them," and the "Damascas" (that is presently all the rage). (…)

Inspired by these dances and the childhood game "Twister," comes a Christafari t-shirt that is fun to wear! Each white 100% cotton T-shirt includes a one-sided high quality four-color print (Red, Yellow, Green and Black). This garment can also be a great witnessing tool since it says: CHRISTAFARI, A New Movement from the New Testament. Preach the Gospel, Read Your Bible, Gospel of Peace, & Flee Temptation.[11]

Now this is an obvious example of what I was trying to describe in my essay. Equally, it’s a practical work out of Mark Mohr’s education at BIOLA University, as we shall see.

The Biblical message is distorted. You can find that back in the slogan “flee temptation”. The Bible never says to flee temptation. The Bible says to flee fornication. And to endure temptation, to keep standing in the midst of temptations. To not fall into it.

You can see this, for example in the response of Yesus Kristos when He was tempted by the devil. When you believe Christafari’s theology, Yesus was committing a sin there because He did not flee temptation, but resisted it.

Tak a look at the following Bible Verses:

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (1 Corinthians 6:18-21)

Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (James 1:12)

Christafari’s teaching, to “flee temptation” therefore is unbiblical. This in itself is a reason why this “New Testament Movement” is “moving away from the New Testament” rather then moving in the principals that are layed out in the second part of Bible.

What happens if you flee temptation? You’re not enduring it, that’s a fact. You run away from it. Where the Bible only claims to flee fornication, Christafari’s doctrine on their Great Witness Tool gives the impression that a Christian should run away from all the “worldy things”.

You can see as well how Christafarianism itself is based on this false doctrine. For where Mark Mohr describes the movement of Rastafari, Reggae Culture and the smoking of Ganja as temptations, it’s obvious how he has to create his own “adoption” of all of this and calls it Christafarianism.

With the Great Witness Tool that has this escapism as doctrine, packed in a snappy slogan, Christafari is literally claiming to create a New Movement.

The Gospel of Escapism... Not the Gospel of Yesus Kristos!

Escapism, the focus for a feeling of safety that they confuse with the inside knowledge of being saved through Yesus Kristos. They try to give it a biblical vibe….

When you go to the Christafari website and check out the picture of the Christafari t-shirt that is fun to wear, you’ll see how the Rastafarian Colours are stripped of their original meaning. They’ve become marketing tools, after all it Is a Christafari t-shirt. Evangelical correct slogans complete this “new movement”.

That’s the way to plug the gap. Create your own movement! “Christafari”: the evangelical correct way to be a Rasta without being one.

But there was more that I expressed my deepest concern about.

Who tells me that when Mark Mohr strips Rastafarian symbols of their Biblical meaning in order to serve his need to “plug the gap in the Industry”, he doesn’t do the same with Evangelical symbols?

After all, he does say:

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.”.

He even calls it a blatant flaw and double standard when I try to adress the Pastor for the things the Superstar is doing:

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.

He does say here, that the “supporter and admirer of our music” is not to be mistaken with “a convert that has been conformed to my ways”. To emphasize that, he adds: “Our listeners come from all walks of life, various doctrinal stances, different denominations and very few of them even have dreadlocks”.

This is his first gospel. The Gospel Reggae Genre.

The fact that this “Gospel” has nothing to do with preaching the Message Of Salvation is simply being admitted by the Superstar in the above quotes. The superstar is not planning to make converts for the Gospel of the Pastor. He even rebukes me for thinking so and calls it a “blatant flaw”…

The Gospel Reggae Star is using Rastafarian Symbology and Biblical Sounding Slogans to create a position in the kingdom of this Gospel: “The Christian industry.”

I wrote extensively in my footnotes how these symbols and expressions have a very Godly meaning in themselves! Whenever they are “applied” by a Rasta or a Yesus Dread, the Kingdom of JAH is boldly declared in the heart of Babylon!

The colours Red Gold and Green are the African Colours. Haile Selassie, the Ethiopian Emperor, has inspired the African Continent to apply these colours everytime to European Colonizers “gave” the Africans “independance”. Whenever a conscious man expresses himself with these colours, that is to be seen as a statement against the Red White and Blue of the Babylonian New World Order. After all, these colours can be found in the flags of for example the Netherlands, Brittain and the United States of America.

In spite of this, Mark Mohr STILL changes the meanings. And THAT is very suspicious. He CHOOSES not to use the Symbols in their original meaning. Even where he admits these Symbols to have Biblical meaning.

The Ethiopian colours do not only represent this “alternative” to the European’s “Judeo Christian Civilization”. Ethiopia is mentioned in the Bible, over and over again. It starts at the very first page when Ethiopia is mentioned as part of Eden’s Garden. To express one’s worship to the Almighty One with the colours Red Gold and Green incorporated in this worship, is a result of studying Ethiopia’s place in the Spiritual Scheme of Things.

And so I ask that question again: who tells me that when Mark Mohr strips Rastafarian symbols of their Biblical meaning in order to serve his need to “plug the gap in the Industry”, he doesn’t do the same with Evangelical symbols?

After all, when I critisize his theology of “all-things-to-all-men”, his excuse is that he doesn’t want to make converts!

Who tells me Mark Mohr isn’t being All Things To All Men so he could win some for his gospel? Being like a Rasta for the Rastas to “win them for the Gospel”, and being like an Evangelical  for the Evangelicals, to win them too? Who tells me that it’s only the Rastafarian Expressions that the the “Christafari Treatment”?

When Mark mohr would “use” the Rastafarian Symbols in their original meaning, he would be a Jesus Dread. He would be chanting down Babylon with the red gold and green if you know what I mean, and he would surely be rejected by this same Christian Industry. Why? Because it’s Babylon!

But Mark Mohr doesn’t want to “use” the Rastafarian Cultural Expressions in their original intent. Even stronger, he says that those who do, are deceivers or enigma’s.

But who is the deceiver?


[1] The full text of Mark Mohr’s Response to The Essay has been posted along with extensive footnotes at the following link

[2] “The Essay” is my first book on Christafarianism.

[3] LINK 

[4]  link

[5] The full text of Mark Mohr’s Response along with the footnotes can be found at the following link

[6] Link

[7] I by no means agree with the terminology of “Rastafarianism”, or “Idol Worshippers” when it comes to the movement of Rastafari. I am simply quoting the words Chrisdtafari uses to express what they call a “religion of a False Christ”

[8] Christafari claims that the Emperor of Ethiopia is a “false Christ” and calls Rastafarians who believe the Emperor of Ethiopiah to be JAH in the flesh “Selassie Worshippers”. “Selassie” being “a different God”…

[9] Almost allways Christafari calls the Culture of Rastafari (“Rastafarianism) a “religion”.

[10] Mark Mohr, Gravity Audio Commentaries. Link

[11] Link


00 -A- -B- -C- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 -D- -E- -F- -G-




This book can also be downloaded as a free PDF or purchased as a print copy for cost price. Links in text may be outdated.


Yesus Kristos


Rastafari Come Reason!
Center for Research on Christianity Babylon Observer


MP3 Reviews Video Reviews
Radio Dubroom Album Reviews
Dubroom Net Label Studio Dubroom


Featured Artist Featured MP3 Artist
Featured Website Featured Album
Featured Video Featured Book