Corey Mahler is one of the most controversial figures on Christian social media because of his views on race, Judaism, and the Post War Consensus. Researching his views is a voluminous task as his content, namely the Stone Choir Podcast, is very longform, and his posts are quite inflammatory and intentionally provocative. His debate with Samuel Sey presents an opportunity to understand what his views are and hear them challenged as to whether they hold up to Scripture.
Challenging him was Samuel Sey. I wrote last week that this was a poor decision for Mahler’s detractors, for the simple reason that Sey is not a bright thinker. This leads to much of the time in the debate lasting about an hour, dedicated to arguments being repeated by Mahler in slightly different variations, as Samuel Sey reasks questions multiple times. The second hour is focused on superchats.
Curse of Ham
The debate starts off getting into a disagreement on a Curse of Ham vs a Curse of Canaan. Samuel Sey asserts that only Canaan and his descendants were cursed, whereas Mahler asserts that the curse applies to varying degrees to all of Ham’s descendants. The two debate the historic precedence of Mahler’s position, with the conclusion that Luther believed that Ham was cursed and Canaan was especially cursed. Mahler is correct that Luther’s view on the Curse of Ham is in accord with his, although Luther spiritualizes the prophecy, noting that the Hamites had initial domination in the world post-Flood but were rather shut out of the Kingdom of God.
Mahler also asserted that this curse, along with the blessings of Shem and Japheth, has played out in human history, something that Calvin argued. Since Mahler is a professing Lutheran, and his views largely align with Luther’s commentary, this becomes a strange issue from which to condemn him. The Curse of Ham is a tertiary issue.
Miscegenation
Corey Mahler is often attacked as someone who views interracial marriage as a sin, but this is not the case. In the debate, Mahler is pressed on his views and clarifies that there are situations where it is and is not sinful. The situation given where it is sinful is if someone is doing so out of hatred for their race. The situation given that is considered not sinful is when a foreign missionary marries a native as part of ingratiating himself with the nation he is ministering to.
Samuel Sey presses Mahler to declare whether his marriage is sinful or not. Sey is a Ghanaian who immigrated to Canada and then married an American. Mahler declines due to a lack of information, to which he is pressed to give the parameters for what information is needed to make a determination. Mahler asked Sey if he was so proud of his Ghanaian heritage, why wouldn’t he want to marry a Ghanaian and pass that on to his children? Sey’s answer to this was insufficient if given at all.
Sey’s personalization of the issue missed the opportunity to ask about Mahler’s views on mixed-race children. The moderator, to his credit, kept the conversation flowing from topic to topic.
Grace And Biology
After the debate, Samuel Sey selected a tiny portion as a clip to be a gotcha against Mahler. Taken in isolation, its a bad clip for Mahler, as he suggests that God is not sanctifying Africans to the same level as Europeans. Expanded, Mahler is clearly not talking about individual sanctification but whether sanctification wipes out the sinful proclivities of certain people groups.
Mahler argues that the Holy Spirit could but does not eliminate genetic predispositions to certain sins in different races, citing alcoholism.
My opinion is that grace transforms nature, but this is not instantaneous. Generations of successive faithfulness, in my theory would improve genetic predispositions. Coincidentally, sin degrades nature, and the sins of the father can be visited on the sons via their DNA. Mahler’s view appears far more rigid than mine. Samuel Sey, in contrast has an atomized view of people.
Sey selected a few seconds to discuss in what was arguably his best moment in the debate, that otherwise went poorly for him.
Conclusion
Mahler is unemotional in discussing these matters, sounding like a robocaller at 1.25x speed. He showed no animosity towards Samuel Sey and could frequently prophesy his arguments. Contrasting this, Samuel Sey’s closing argument was a diatribe on why Corey Mahler was not a believer and not a part of God’s Chosen Race.
Mahler does not return the favor, believing this issues to be able to disagree upon without casting one outside the Kingdom. At times, Mahler compliments Sey, only for Sey to return with a scoff.
Corey Mahler is made out to be a boogeyman, but in my first experience hearing him elaborate and defend his views, he fails to live up to his preceded reputation. Corey Mahler won the debate, hands down. But Samuel Sey has enough friends, unlike Chris Rosebrough, that he will be able to save face.
Powered by RedCircle
6 Responses
I’m glad Mahler won. If only he could spend less time tweeting and more time writing and debating. While I agree with him that it would be hard to say that interracial marriage is definitely a sin or definitely not a sin, I would point out the Hudson Taylor, though he lived like the Chinese for much of his career, married an English woman. (Though it doesn’t mean it definitely has to be that way for everyone.) And I would put marriage between a European and an Oriental or South Asian or Middle Easterner or American Indian in a different category than with a black African or Australian Aborigine, because the difference in the latter two is wider and it could be considered poor stewardship, and could reasonably be condemned as going against the principle of not mixing things that don’t match. I am open, therefore, to the possibility that all marriages in normal circumstances between Europeans and Black Africans are sinful. C.S. Lewis, in discussing sinful pride, said, “the proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but because he wants her, but because he wants to prove he is better than you.” That may be behind some marriages involving proud black men and white women, though I can’t say that it’s definitely the case with Sey, and white women are generally prettier than black women, if you ask me. Mr. Mahler did well to be a gentleman and not condemn Sey to Hell, but with Sey condemning Mahler over things that are not opposed to the Apostle’s creed ( or any portrayals of the gospel in the New Testament, which is more important) and slandering him by taking things out of context, it is not unreasonable to suspect Sey doesn’t know what Christianity is about or doesn’t really want to follow the Lord.
In my research, I just came across this website and enjoying it thoroughly.
Corey Maher won on speaker points, but lost the debate. I actually experienced this in my collage days in debate class in college. I can not remember the topic, but the class and the professor judged the debate. The class unanimously voted my partner and I lost, the professor voted we won with 0 speaker points while our opponents received 8 speaker points. How can this be?
The opposition spoke eloquently, but utterly failed to address our argument.
I see the debate as just how wonderful the Lord is at work. The dark black humble Sey faced an intelligent white man who embraces race and IQ because he embraces naturalism apart from Scripture as a source of truth.
Samuel Sey stumbled trying to find the right Scripture but eventually did so. It was a wonder to behold.
Samuel Sey was not rebutted.
There is such a thing as Christian Nationalism, and it is revealed to us in Scripture.
“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9
The Christian view is that both salvation and truth is a gift of God, who graciously reveals it to men through Scripture. The Christian theory of knowledge parallels the Christian doctrine of salvation: Soteriology mirrors epistemology.
Mahler separates the two. He argues what applies to salvation does not apply to knowledge. And acknowledged repeatedly his view of race comes from observing creation (race and IQ among other things.). Mahler subordinates Scripture to observation and reason. while condemning liberalism for subordinating Scripture to the Enlightenment.
Men are both enlightened and saved by God. Scripture refers to salvation as enlightenment, as “coming to the knowledge of the truth.”
UGLY OLD GOAT
PS: I recently wrote and article on this.
https://medium.com/@homeytel/the-ritual-of-fascist-sacralism-is-here-648858495bdc
It also appears as an article on X.
https://x.com/UglyOldGoat1/status/1915233764998815908
To paraphrase the Reverend John Stott, we must distinguish from scientific theory and settled fact, and what the Bible clearly says and what we would like it to say. Neither man is perfect, but it seems that Sey, if Mr. Fava is representing the debate correctly, was anything but humble, in the best sense of the word, because he condemned his opponent to Hell over a disagreement that did not contradict the gospel as presented in scriptures, and was rude to him when he complimented him. It’s just plain obvious that not all Christians are smarter than non-Christians, or better people, humanly speaking (Stephen Hawking, who did not know the Lord, is much smarter than me). Nor does God call us to form a single Christian nation-state, even in Heaven, there are nations. And interpretations of scripture that go against obvious reality that we can see must not be considered, if someone claimed that the sky was deep green with purple polka dots and said it was from the Bible, I would reject that theory no matter how convincing. ( Though of course the Bible doesn’t say that.) I’ve been told many times that the Bible teaches there is only one race, the human race, but I know at a glance that isn’t true, and the Bible acknowledges race as a biological reality, at very least ( can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard his spots). There is a vast difference between taking the Bible naturally and using hyper literal interpretations of certain verses to make a point.
Boy you guys really drank the koolaid. You need to study more and fantasize less. Don’t you know that that the pictures and statues you worship are not of Yeshua, God or anything holy. Stop looking at the pictures and study. The only whyte people in the bible were the Romans. Did you know that the name Adam means black skin.
Your people used the images that looked like them for conquest and nothing else. The sad thing is that you believe or hope there is superiority in skin but it is not. Superiority is in GOD consciousness and if you check your actions, it is not in many of you. I have never seen a people so full of hate and vitriol as whyte so-called christian-nationalists. You follow nothing of the one you profess to love and for you to be debating the spiritual essence of Black is not only asinine and idiotic but would be funny if it wasn’t so sad
Civil rights apostate says:
//I am open, therefore, to the possibility that all marriages in normal circumstances between Europeans and Black Africans are sinful.//
That is a garbage take without a shred of Biblical support. This view isn’t in line with the truth of the Gospel.
Racism is a cancer to the body of Christ. Shame on you all. We have more important things to worry about.