CHRISTAFARIANISM: BE LIKE A RASTA

While the music may sound the same, familiar words and approaches are being transformed into Christian. Symbols and culture language of the satanic heavy metal world are being used. A visit to the Sanctuary  site will illustrate this better then words can do[2].

You can easily see how this served as a source of inspiration for Mark Mohr's approach to Rastafari.

And Mark, in his own might, is very creative in coming up with double layer names.

You might recall “The Gathering ” in Trinidad and how it was planted there after Mark Mohr’s wife was so brutally denied access to the USA. Various publications in the Christian press described the structure and philosophy behind this “church 2.0” as Mark Mohr calls it.

According these articles: “The Gathering is founded on four key pillars: Worship, Instruction, Fellowship and Evangelism (W.I.F.E.) .[3]”

For Mark, being able to plant the Gathering was directly related to the situation in which the US government had put his w.i.f.e.  

I’m not saying that it is wrong to do things like that. Creativity must come out and there is nothing wrong with giving some “private praises” to Jah in this manner.

I’m simply establishing that the founder of Christafari is creative and sometimes putting more layers in his titles and descriptions, referring to some personal situations.

When I check the name "Christafari", it can easily be identified as a derivative of "Rastafari".

Christafari themselves do deny this, and they come up with all kinds of explanations why they use the name.

One is that it’s the name “Christopher ” and they give the explanation for the Greek name. For Rastafarians, though, the name Christopher is indeed a symbol, but a symbol for the Babylonian Christianity. For was it not CHRISTOPHER Columbus  that “discovered” “America”?[4]

These kinds of things make you wonder.

For a real cynic, it could be a sign that Christafari is doing a perfect job in confirming for the Rastafarians the existence of the White Geezus  Xianity  that want to change Rastafari into a Babylon thing.

After all, Babylonian groups do have their hidden meaning or identity often hidden in a deeper layer of their name.

But I’m not that cynical.

But it’s a sign of sheer ignorance to say the least. In zeal to get a nice sounding name, it’s forgotten how Rastafarians think and feel.

On the Christafari website it is made clear, that the only reason why Christafari is using the colors  Red Gold and Green, dreadlocks, Jamaican and Iyaric (Rasta language), is to fulfill a missionary purpose. 

For this, a bible scripture is used in which the apostle Paul  says that he is always adjusting himself to other people, in order to win people for Christ[5].

The Christian Heavy Metal scene  uses this scripture often too, in order to biblically justify their choice of looks and music to the Christian establishment.

And maybe they can do that.

But it is also used by Christafari to explain their usage of Reggae, Dreadlocks and other parts of Rasta Culture to this very same Christian establishment.

It's needless to say, that out of this all a "we vs. them" mentality comes to exist. Where most Rastafarians will at least be respectful towards genuine Christianity , Christafari makes a strong effort in establishing a clear distinction between Christianity and Rastafari. Not only by choosing to interpretate this bible scripture as scriptural foundation for wearing dreadlocks, also within their further reasoning it becomes clear that they view Rasta as a "Christ-less" (without Christ) teaching .

I will quote some remarks from the Christafari website.

First, part of the answer to the question: "Why do you wear dreads?"

....... I guess that you could say that "To the Rastas I became like a Rasta, to win the Rastas." Yet people still ask; "Isn't this just an attempt to justify your lifestyle?" Aren't you compromising?" No. You must set limits. We cannot fall into sin or attempt to imitate it. But something as neutral as hair is not a sin issue. I wear locks so that I can go into places and be accepted in areas that a "Crazy Baldhead" would not. For me they have proven very fruitful. If I approached a Rasta in a suit and tie they would most likely put up a wall that I could never break through. However, with long dreads I can enter a Rasta territory and receive respect, in turn, they let their guards down. It is then, through reasoning with Rastas that I can share the Gospel in a non threatening way. I do it all "for the sake of the gospel", so that I might win some."[6]

Analyzing the bible scripture brings me to the conclusion that this is a mention of integrating into a culture, not a religion, in order to win people who are outside the body of Christ[7] into Christianity. Paulus , the writer of this scripture, sat down with peoples, he reasoned with them, ate and drink with them. Worked together with them. Like Yesus did, too.

How different Xianity  has been, colonializing one half, plundering the other halve, all in the name of enforcing "Christian Rule".

So can this scripture be used in the situation of Rastafari, especially when Rastafari is being presented as a non-Christian religion?

Let's suppose Rastafari is a non-Christian religion, does the Bible say it is good to use symbolism from a non-Christian religion and give them a Christian interpretation? I believe one can seriously doubt that, for a variety of reasons.

The Catholics  did it all the time, for example. They built their cathedrals on the places where the druids came together, picked names out of the Bible to put on all the statues of pagan idols, and gave Christian interpretations to pagan festivals such as Christ mass.

The New Agers  do it all the time too. They come to for example the Christians, pretending to be Christians  too, and then they give their own interpretation to all these things that make the Christian faith unique in it’s kind.

In fact, it’s a classic method of infiltration and subsequent manipulation. It’s the method we know as “the wolf in sheep’s clothing ”.

Nowhere you can read that Paul pretended to be a believer of other religions to identify himself with the believers of those religions.

Paul talked about cultural differences .

Translated to today, you can put it this way: "Paul  didn't say he became like a Hindu to win the Hindu's, but he said he became like an Indian to the people of India."

Paul  was saying that you should abide by the different cultures. If he would visit a Greek he would be like a Greek, that is he would enjoy hospitality of the Greeks and so on, he would adjust himself to the Greek culture.

But he wouldn't be like an idol worshipper.

He wouldn't go to an idol's temple, and do everything that the people in that temple did except for worshipping that idol.

Mark Mohr is using a scripture talking about cultural movements and applying it to a movement that he himself defines as another religion from Christianity. I think that this kind of scripture interpretation is potentially destructive and confusing.

One thing is for sure; this scripture does not suggest that you have to take things of another religion in order to win those people within that religion for Christ.

Christafarianism  identifies Rastafari as a religion. Therefore, their use of this scripture is inappropriate and cannot be a biblical explanation of his wearing of dreadlocks.

What illustrates this better than the fruits of the Christafari works itself?

In 2003 they made an important announcement. No longer would they “use” the Name JAH in their new releases.

On the Christafari website, the audience was told: “my primary goal was to see the rasta church become Christian, yet one of the regrettable fruits of my labor, (due to uneducated imitation by other artists) is the Christian church becoming more rasta. This was never my intention. It was not my desire to have a Christian congregation in Trinidad shouting out the name "JAH!" in their church services.[8]”

In an interview with the Dubroom, it became clear that this was not the only change. Rastafarians themselves would no longer be the “main target group”  if you will.

After years of explaining, justifying even, their whole appearance by pointing out to their alleged “Rastafarian target audience”, I thought it was interesting to know how much the change of target audience would be followed by a change of appearance. Consequently I asked Mark Mohr if this shift meant that he would also change the use of Rastafarian symbology et cetera.

And his strong answer was: “No, absolutely not![9]”.

So it is obvious, that this whole interpretation, or should I say, justification, has absolutely no basis in either scripture neither in common sense.

Christafari base their whole appearance, name, even identity, via this wrong interpretation of a scripture on having Rastafarians as their “target group” so to speak. Now that they no longer want to “reach the Rastas”, there is no sign of them changing their appearance in accordance with their next “target group”. 

They say they are what they are because they want to reach the Rastas  but now they no longer want to reach the Rastas they do not change the way that they are so there we have a contradiction.

Still, many Christafarians  think it is a very valid thing to do and in their zeal, they do a lot of damage.

And then I haven’t even fully addressed the point from the Rastafarians themselves.

When you use certain outward aspects of Rastafarian culture , such as the wearing of dreadlocks, or the usage of the colors Red Gold and Green, stricktly for cosmetic reasons, this will be labeled as "commercialization of Rastafari " and will most certainly not contribute to an open reasoning between Rastafarians and Christians  and the many that are caught in between the two because they do not want to be a part in this Christianity that only accepts aspects of Rastafarian culture when they are totally stripped down from their importance.

There are many artists without any affiliation to the movement of Rastafari using the language and the symbols nevertheless, for commercial gain .

These people are called "riding along the Rastaman bandwagon ".

In a way, Christafarianism is doing the same thing.

And this doesn’t go unnoticed.

One Rasta website describes Christafarianism  like this: (using) “the image/ideology of Rastafari to denounce Haile Selassie the father of the order to convert Rasta to the religion of a fictitious Christ is a crime against the Rastafari movement .[10]”

These are really hard words! Hard to swallow, and some might even think that this judgment is coming from a militant and extreme faction within Rastafari and would therefore not represent the common sentiment within the movement.

But every Rastafarian that I asked, or heard, has this same reaction to Christafarianism.

Without even one exception!

And they all have the same reason. A reason having nothing to do whatsoever with Yesus Kristos and the Christianity that the Divine Saviour stands for.

There is nobody in the Rastafarian movement who hates the Saviour of Whom Haile Selassie spoke of, but there are many who think Christafari represents the white geezus.

It’s not for nothing that the Rasta website mentions a fictitious, or false Christ.

It doesn’t mean they think that Christ doesn’t exist.

They feel that this white geezus  is being promoted because of the way Christafari is using the Rastafarian culture and symbology, not because Christafari speaks about Jesus Christ.

You can read that directly in the text by applying grammatical analysis.

We had grammar lessons at school. If we wanted to know what a certain sentence really meant, we had to find the subject and all that by formulating questions involving words from the sentence.

Take the text from the website, and simply ask the question: what is “a crime against the Rastafari movement”? The answer is “using the image/ideology of Rasta to denounce Haile Selassie.”: a perfect description of Christafarianism, but not of Christianity!

It is really important to see that all the negative responses to Christafari can be boiled down to a critization of Christafarianism, and not Christianity itself.

For Christafari this is apparently not clear, because you can find a lot of articles and interviews in which accusations and critiques are described as Rastas attacking Christianity.

For the Rastaman however, it’s a simple issue: would Yesus Kristos require His disciples to use forms of manipulation to promote Him and His message? Would Yesus Kristos tell His disciples to deny the faith of the Rastafarians? Of course not.

Maybe because these things are so simple for a Rastaman, he has to make the conclusion that Christafarianism is a manipulation scheme of the Babylonians in order to break the movement of Rastafari, just like they tried by killing Bob Marley and shipping in the Cocaine to Jamaica.

For a Rasta it isn’t so obvious that behind Christafarianism there can still be a good intention. Because the flaws, contradictions and false information are so apparent.

This can all be related back to Bob Beeman  and his Sanctuary  Organization.

Where some of Beeman’s “methods of communication” may very well be appropriate and could have a biblical basis as well in the case of spreading JAH’s Message to Satanistic Heavy Metal fans , applying these same principals to the movement of Rastafari has disastrous results.

As the saying goes, the road to the fire is paved with good intentions.

How would you feel if someone would come to you, looking just like you, talking just like you, only to show you how wrong you are? And if this person then claims that “The Bible Told Him So”, wouldn’t you feel a little weird about this person and his believes? Or even about the Bible itself?

Just a thought.

Fortunately the Rastaman knows that the proclaimed crime against the Rastafari movement  cannot possibly come from Jah or from the Bible.

No, there is no way that the Bible would contain a justification for such a thing.

It’s cosmetic, it will therefore only appeal to those who are “cosmetically involved” with Rastafari, so to speak.

They like to wear the colors, nat up their head, smoke a lot of weed and say “Rastafari” all the time.

But they have nothing to do with the things Rastafari stands for.

One of these things, and not the least one either, is identifying Babylon system and her perverted form of Christianity, which has been used for centuries now to keep people in slavery.

Another thing is an appeal to live “from the heart”, that is, to be real. Not to have an outward appearance which does not harmonically interact with the inward man.

It is easy to see how Christafarianism  with its focus on image and the Christian mainstream doesn’t land too well with most Rastafarians.

It’s equally easy to see how it is not Christianity that offends the Rastafarians.

And still there is that question. Is Rasta really a religion?  

Can it be defined as a Christ-less religion, as it is done over and over again in the evangelical Christian world?

This is one of the most crucial issues, and that becomes clear if I ask that question in a different way.

Are Rastafarians enemies of Yesus Kristos?  Fighting against the message of salvation?

Are they, because of the fact that they are Rastafarian, outside of the Body of Kristos?

It is clear that in order to be in the body of Christ, scriptural spoken one has to believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnated in the flesh, and accepted as one's Lord and Saviour.

So the question I should ask myself is: "Do all Rastas deny Christ as their Lord and Saviour as a key element of the definition of Rastafari? "

The answer is “no", as proof can be found on the Dubroom Website (Gad [11] and Yesehaq [12] interviews). Haile Selassie  said that there were “certain” Rastafarians who regarded him in a way he didn’t want to be regarded[13], and he said about all Rastafarians: “who am I to deny their faith?”  

There are actually many Rastafarians who do not believe that Haile Selassie is God .

They are most certainly Christians, for they have accepted Yesus Kristos as their Lord and Saviour and they are expecting Kristos any day now. 

So simply because of this fact alone, it cannot be said that Rastafari is a religion that worships Selassie as God.

When I address this issue in the midst of people working with Christafari and it is admitted that there are Rastafarians who do not believe Selassie to be Yesus  but still believe in Yesus as their Lord and Saviour, they often come up with the argument that “it’s a small minority and we’re speaking generally and generally our definition applies”…

Here’s an example:

Many (not all) rastas agree with the doctrinal statement of the "Ethiopian World Federation ," "We now declare again H.I.M. Haile Selassie is Christ the Son, Jehovah the Father united through the Spirit to bring to man the fullness of the Holy Trinity."

(…) when I say "Rastafarian," I am usually thinking of the Ethiopian World Union's Definition, while keeping in mind that there are twelve tribers and others like yourself that differ in views. [14]

I must think about something that I have read in a book called "Dread Jesus [15]", which investigates the connection between Rastafari and Christianity. I recommend it to everyone!

The writer quotes Judy Mowatt , who tells us she had to give a concert in a place where many Rastafarians were, and she had just recently given her life to Christ so she was quite nervous, but after the concert she witnessed that Rastafarian elders came to her to say that they also believed the same thing.

There is something going on within the movement of Rastafari, there are many who are Christians according to the Nicean Creed , which is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church  as well as the evangelical movement .

Unfortunately, this truth is being ignored by many, including Christafari, so the truth is that there are many Rastafarians who have accepted their Lord and Saviour, Yesus Kristos, and who do not worship Haile Selassie as God.

Because the western Christian world refuses to see the spiritual significance of Ethiopia , as the first Christian Nation on earth, they are also unaware of the real situation within the movement of Rastafari. In the meantime, the Ethiopian Church has baptized many Rastafarians , in the Name of Yesus Kristos, our Lord and Saviour.

So even if you would apply the strictest definition of a Christian , you would have to admit that a part of the movement of Rastafari consists out of Christians.

There is another thing I would like to draw into this reasoning again. Another question I would like to ask myself.

If Haile Selassie  would really be the Incarnation of Jah (whether Father, Son or Spirit), would I then have to worship him?

The answer to this question is yes, for I do not worship Selassie where I do not believe that he is Jesus. If he would be, I would have to worship him.

Because I worship Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and I know that His Return will be dread, as Lion of the tribe of Judah, for the Lion of Judah  and the Lamb of God are one and the same. It’s written in the Bible![16]

This same thing is being acknowledged by the multitude of Rastafarians as motivation for believing Selassie to be Jah .

How can that be, you say?

For that, we have to go to Ethiopia , that land with so much biblical references integrated in its rich and ancient culture. That land with so many references in the Bible itself!

The Kings of Ethiopia have various titles. One of such a title is “King of kings”. Another one is Lion of Judah. Many people think that this is because the Ethiopian monarchs think they are God. But that is not the case.

The Ethiopian kings  did not name themselves after this Bible verse. They were called that way long time before this scripture was written. So while it is correct that this scripture does refer to Haile Selassie, in the same time it doesn’t point out to His Majesty in the way many perceive it.

“Lion of Judah ” and “King of kings” are titles. Another example is “Father”. Or “Son of Man”. They refer to a function. The Bible makes use of such titles many times.

Let’s take “Father” and keep in mind that the same principal applies to “Lion of Judah ”.

How many times can you find the good Lord God JAH described as “Your Father In Heaven”? Numerous times.

In order to see what Jah means when He describes Himself to us as our Father, we look around us to see if we can find something called “father”. And then we get an impression as to what is meant with this particular description or title of Jah.

There’s more to it.

Because when we look around us for a “father”, not all of us will find someone who loves us, who wanted us to live and who wants to raise us to be a grown up, solid person.

So we know that Jah is the perfect father, and that there are people on earth that we also call father, who have the responsibility to show their children in a loving way how to grow up.

That’s why Yesus says: “And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”[17]

Exactly this is how many Christian people view the Lions of Judah that we know the Ethiopian rulers to be . They point out to Yesus Kristos and they say: “This is the Lion of Judah. The One and Only. And you shall call no one else Lion of Judah”.

And of course Yesus Kristos is THE Lion of Judah, just like Jah is THE Father.

But that doesn’t take away the fact that there are fathers on earth and that we can look at them to get an impression as to what it means when it is said that Jah is our Father.

And it doesn’t take away that there are Lions of Judah  on earth and that we can look at them to get an impression as to what it means when it is said that Yesus Kristos is the Lion of Judah .

The Ethiopian kings , by way of their function, point out to the coming reign of Yesus Kristos. The Ethiopians do not see Haile Selassie  as Yesus Kristos. But they do know, every time when they look at him, that Yesus Kristos will reign.

Fathers, by way of their function, point out to the loving full and educational way our Creator deals with us, his creations. We as creations do not see our fathers as Jah. But we do know, every time we look at them, that Jah is our Creator who loves us and educates us.

Nowhere it is said in the Bible, that Yesus Kristos is the only Lion of Judah. But it is said in the Bible, that you should call no one your father but Jah.

Still, after Yesus Kristos said that, this is done. Lukas writes about “Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek”[18].

Of course, everyone knows that Jah is The Father. And we know this also when we refer to the father of Timotheus.

So when we look in Revelation and we see that Yesus Kristos being presented as the Lion of Judah  who will break the seven seals and take over the world, downstroying Babylon, that doesn’t mean that He is the only Lion of Judah .

We can take a look at Haile Selassie and learn a lot about the coming reign of Yesus Kristos, the Lion of Judah. Much more then we can learn about Jah Love by many “fathers”, even Christian ones…

According to people of the Ethiopian Church  with whom I had communication with over the years many people make that mistake that they think Haile Selassie  is God because Haile Selassie is anointed in the Name of Yesus Kristos, as King representing the coming eternal physical reign ship of Yesus Kristos.

Another Ethiopian priest gave me an analogy. It happened to the apostle Paulus and his friend Silas too. They were speaking about the Good Lord and the people thought that they were gods and started to worship them. Paulus and Silas did not deny the faith of these people but they merely pointed out to the fact that if the people would worship Paulus and Silas, they were worshipping God in a wrong way.

Haile Selassie  did exactly the same.

So while I am in full agreement with Christafari, that Selassie is not Jah and that Jah does not want that Selassie is being viewed as Christ, and also Selassie did not want it himself, I believe in my heart, that worshipping God wrong is something different than worshipping a wrong God.

In my opinion this is also what Selassie himself wanted to say when it comes to Christianity's "answer" to Rastafari, when he asked that key-question: “Who am I to deny their faith” ?

Christafarianism does deny their faith.

While Mark Mohr obviously places Rasta outside the body of Christ, in the same time he places himself outside of the movement of Rastafari where he is still using symbolism and culture.

This is a key element in Christafarianism , inevitably leading to hypocrisy, if not hypocritical in itself. While Christafarianism wants to use as many things from Rastafarian culture as their interpretation of scripture will let them, Christafari thinker Mark Mohr makes a clear distinction, based on a definition of Rastafari  that is not in accordance with the reality of the situation in the movement. 

And he goes even further: by almost putting an anathema[19] on those Christians who feel they are a part of the movement of Rastafari.

This is a part from the answer to "Should Christians call themselves Rastas?":

....... I do believe that it is seriously misleading for a Christian to call themselves a "Rasta." For God is not the author of deception or misrepresentation. It is contradictory for a born again believer to use this appellation. Although some cultures use the term in a broader sense as a descriptive for anyone that is a dread, the real issue is in the origin of the word. If you are a Christian with dreadlocks, you may not be able to keep people from calling you a "Rasta," but this does not mean that you should use the term to identify yourself. For "Rasta" is an abbreviation for "Rastafarian." A "Rastafarian" is a follower of "Rastafari" and an adherent to the beliefs of "Rastafarianism" (i.e., a believer in the deity or veneration of Haile Selassie , repatriation, Ethiopia as Zion and the sacramental use of marijuana). You see there can be a grave difference between your intentions and how someone interprets them. Some Christians may try and say that "It is okay for me to hail up the name 'Rastafari,' for when I chant it out I mean the true definition in my heart. You see the true definition is 'Head Creator,' and to me the Head Creator is Christ." But while you may be thinking this, everyone else around you drawing a different conclusion. If you look like a Rasta, walk like a Rasta, talk like a Rasta, and call yourself a Rasta, then guess what? You ARE a Rasta. And you will not be thought of as a Christian. How then can you be the salt and light of the world, when each of your actions and testimonies are being interpreted for the benefit and furtherance of Rastafari and not Christendom[20]?

Christafari leaves no room: If you call yourself a Rasta, you are not a Christian.

If, by his own words, you: "look like a Rasta, walk like a Rasta, talk like a Rasta and call yourself a Rasta, then guess what? You ARE a Rasta. And you will not be thought of as a Christian.".

The difference is in what Christafari finds acceptable and un-acceptable is very subtle if not non-existent, since Mark Mohr also describes himself even in the same paragraph as (paraphrased) someone who: "looks like a Rasta, walks like a Rasta, talks like a Rasta, and can't keep people from calling himself a Rasta," either. And he even claims that the Bible says he should do a thing like that.

I sometimes wonder why Mark Mohr doesn't come to the conclusion that by his own looking like a Rasta, causing people to think he is a Rasta sometimes, he is evidently not practicing what he preaches.

The Christafari “shift” in “target audience” from Rastafarians to New Agers and other Universalists which in my eyes completely takes him away from his own justification for his own appearance will not help clear up things either.

On the contrary.

The whole “Rastaish Image” of Christafari  will make the “universalist church more Rasta”, to paraphrase Mark Mohr’s words.

And again I have to point out to the perspective of the Rastaman. According to his statement anyone who says he's a Rasta while looking like a Rasta etc, is in fact a Rasta.

I think every true Rastaman would deny such a thing, because there are many walking on this planet saying they are Rasta but are no Rastas at all.

Even stronger.

A little riddle: it looks like a sheep, talks like a sheep and walks like a sheep. What is it? Yes, you guessed that right: a wolf in sheep’s clothing . And exactly that is how many Rastafarians perceive this “Christafarian Methodology ”.

Now I know, that this is not what Mark Mohr himself says, he wants to say that if you act like a Rasta you are considered a Rasta.

He even acknowledges that he himself is considered a Rasta at certain moments, as a result of his appearance. And people really do not listen if someone says Jah Rastafari or not, or if someone calls himself Rasta or not, but they see when someone "walks and talks like a Rasta".

So in a way, he’s right.

There are several instances in which I heard people witness that they did not know Christafari did not believe Selassie to be God. They were considered Rastas [21] for they walk, talk and use symbolism of Rastafari.

And on a Christian website “exposing Universalists  within Christian music”, we find Christafari’s name on a list of artists involved in what the author of that website believes to be a new age /universalist release[22].  

FOOTNOTES

LINK

PDF

PRINT