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

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

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 Even unpublished material can be used legally.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. 

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.

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.

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... 

"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."

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.

(...) 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

LINK TO THE PAGE

SEARCH GOOGLE FOR MORE

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. 

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

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.

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)

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.

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.  

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!

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. 

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...

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

LINK TO THE PAGE

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.

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".

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.

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:

LINK TO THE PAGE

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.

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.