Reggaefarians, Rent-a-Dread, Dready: The Exclusionary Branding with Rastafari Community!

A Response to “RasTafari and the Reggaefarian”: In My Father’s House Are Many Mansion

RasTafari and the Reggaefarian: A Necessary and Urgent Distinction
RasTafari 360° | Theological & Historical Commentary

by

Tafari Holsey

I have read the article “RasTafari and the Reggaefarian: A Necessary and Urgent Distinction.” While I respect the call for historical honesty, I find its central argument flawed in a way that imposes arbitrary boundaries on a living, diverse movement. So big up, Tafari Holsey – respect for the historical deep dive. But your piece? It's like trying to gatekeep a Nyabinghi drum circle with a "Christians Only" sign. Flawed, fam. You're drawing lines in the sand where Rastafari's always been a free-flowing river – wide, wild, and welcoming all vibes.

The article insists that to be a true RasTafari, one must follow Haile Selassie I as he defined himself: a Trinitarian Christian who rejected any claim to divinity. Those who do not — who hold Selassie as divine, who build their livity around Reggae and Ital and Jah as a divine name — are dismissed as “Reggaefarians,” followers of an aesthetic projection rather than the real man.

But this assumes something Rastafari has never universally accepted: that the man himself is the final authority on how he should be understood.

Rastafari Is a Spectrum, Not a Dogma

I see Rastafari existing on a wide spectrum. At one end, there are militant, isolationist mansions with strict codes. At the other, those whose engagement is primarily cultural or aesthetic — and everything in between. The term “Reggaefarian” may usefully describe the shallow end of that spectrum, but to use it as a weapon to exclude entire mansions and individual paths is to mistake one mansion for the whole house.

Rastafari ain't a cult with a rulebook – it's a vibrant vibe spectrum:

• Militant end: Bobo Shanti lockdown, strict codes.
• Chill end: Reggaefarian rasta roadies jamming to Bunny Wailer.
• Middle ground: Nyabinghi reasonings, Twelve Tribes barbecues, solo livity hackers.

The article says: “You cannot claim to follow Haile Selassie I while detesting what Haile Selassie I followed.” But Rastafari did not ask Selassie’s permission to revere him. The movement gave him godhood; he did not give us a religion. That act of deification was a spiritual and political choice by Caribbean people who saw in him a living symbol of Black liberation, biblical prophecy, and African sovereignty. Whether the Emperor agreed is irrelevant to the validity of that revelation for those who received it.

In my Father’s house are many mansions. The various mansions of Rastafari — Bobo Shanti, Nyabinghi, Twelve Tribes, and countless individual paths — all have different modus operandi. None has the right to police the others based on a selective reading of the Emperor’s biography. Who died and made any one person, the realtor of my Father's mansion or seek to exclude a brother from a house in which many mansions exist?

The Question the Article Cannot Answer

The article demands we follow Selassie’s Christian confession. But it does not demand we follow his diet. It does not demand we adopt his monarchism, his imperial dress, his Ethiopian Orthodox fasting calendar, or his preference for Viennese apple strudel.
So I ask plainly, and I ask for an honest answer:

Why should a "true" RasTafari follow Haile Selassie I’s Christianity, but not his diet?

If the answer is “because he explicitly taught his Christian faith, while his diet was merely personal preference,” then the standard is not “follow the man” — it is “follow his explicit teachings.” And his explicit teachings are found in the Bible and Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, which many Rastafari do not accept as binding. You have simply replaced Reggae lyrics with catechism as your authority.

If the answer is “because the Christian confession is essential to his identity, while diet is not,” then you have already admitted to selecting what is “essential” based on your own theological commitments. That is no different from the Reggaefarian who selects Ital, locks, and Jah as divine.

A Better Way

Rather than drawing a hard line between “true RasTafari” and “Reggaefarian,” I propose we recognize Rastafari as a spectrum of practice, belief, and commitment. Some follow Selassie as divine. Some as a righteous king. Some as a historical inspiration. Some engage primarily through music and culture. All exist within the broad current of a movement that has never had a pope, a catechism, or an inquisition.

Ditch the dogma dojo. Rastafari's strength? No pope, no catechism, no inquisition – just personal reasonings, Bible wrestling, and conscience calls. Study Selassie, sure. But slavish mimicry? That's Livity Lite.

Spectrum not schism. All mansions under one roof: divine Jah-worshippers, righteous king fans, culture crew. Grow through grappling, not gatekeeping.

One burning Q for you, Tafari Holsey: Are you calling for a Great RasTafari Schism – like Eastern Orthodox vs. Catholics (1054 filibuster), or Catholics vs. Protestants (Luther's nail-bomb)? 'Cause drawing "true" vs. "fake" lines feels awfully Reformation-y. History says schisms birth wars, not wisdom. Thoughts, bredren?

What is the merit of slavishly following Selassie’s every stated belief, rather than caring, careful individual study of his life and our own conscience? I see none. Spiritual growth comes from wrestling with sources, not submitting to someone else’s rule of selection.
So I end where I began: In my Father’s house are many mansions. Let the article keep its mansion. But do not tell me the others are not part of the house.

#SpectrumNotSchism 
#ManyMansions
#InIOwnLivity