Implementing Separatist Convictions, Part 3

By Ernest Pickering (1928-2000). Read Part 1and Part 2.

The Pitfalls of Separatists

Separatists are human. They have sins. They are not perfect. While the matters about to be discussed are not problems exclusively for separatists, separatists are especially vulnerable to them by virtue of their unique position.

An improper spirit

It is possible to believe the right things, but to hold them and present them in the wrong way. Paul told us this when he spoke of those in Philippi who preached Christ “of envy and strife” and “of contention” (Philippians 1:15, 16). He was saying that he was happy for their message—Christ—but saddened by their spirit. Because separatists are in almost constant conflict in order to maintain their position against the tremendous attacks mounted against them, they can develop a spirit of bitterness and acrimony. They are under the gun most of the time, and this situation can take its toll. It is very important to be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). On occasion, some separatists may be long on truth and short on love.

Over-occupation with the issues

The issues are matters related to the apostasy and the response of separation. Some preachers become specialists in exposing the apostasy. They become consumed with the negative. They fail to feed upon the Word themselves, and they fail, therefore, to feed their people. The pastor is to declare “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This description means he must not major on any one theme, but must seek for a full orchestration of Biblical truth. In some separatist congregations, people starve for lack of wholesome food while their pastor rants about the issues.

Uncontrolled suspicion

Some separatists see a new evangelical under every bush and a compromiser in every other pulpit. They are constantly “uncovering the dirt” about other believers. They have just heard this, or they have just heard that. They see sinister meaning in perfectly innocent actions. It is this characteristic, probably more than any other, that is sometimes referred to by nonseparatists as part of the “separatist mentality.” We would not hesitate to confess that this characteristic could be used to describe some separatists. On the other hand, we believe that this characteristic is not the essence of separatism and that it would be most heartily repudiated by most separatist leaders.

We certainly ought not to be gullible nor should we be silent when it is required that we should speak. But we ought not to make the main emphasis of our ministry “detective work.” One can develop a suspicious attitude toward everyone that can militate against helpful interaction and constructive growth.

Certainly separatists should immerse themselves in 1 Corinthians 13. Paul made an interesting statement: Love “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (v. 7). Does this statement mean we should gullibly accept whatever we are told? Does it support the idea that we should accept everyone’s Christian profession with no questions asked? No. The thrust of this verse is that we should be optimistic, hopeful, and positive in our relationships toward others—not suspicious and distrustful. If, of course, individuals show themselves through repeated actions as unworthy of trust, then we are forced to make appropriate judgments.

We believe R. C. H. Lenski had a helpful observation when he said that love “refuses to yield to suspicions of doubt. The flesh is ready to believe all things about a brother and a fellow man in an evil sense. Love does the opposite.”3 Biblical separatists are people with strong convictions. They are resolute. They have something of Elijah, John, Paul, and Jude in their natures. The very traits God uses to make them strong must be controlled, or separation can turn to fragmentation.4

Incorrect labels

Not everyone from whom we would be called to separate is an apostate. Nor, on the other hand, would they all be new evangelicals or liberals. The terms “new evangelical” and “liberal” are sometimes loosely employed to characterize all with whom one disagrees or all who have some practice or method deviant from the fundamentalist norm. This is not an accurate usage of the term and is an example of the techniques that sometimes bring unnecessary derision upon the heads of separatists.

Gloating over failures

On occasion some separatists seem to view with glee the uncovering of some fault in another Bible-believing servant of God. We ought to weep and not rejoice. “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him” (Proverbs 24:17, 18). If this should be our attitude toward our enemies, should it not be even more so toward our fellow believers? Paul warned his brethren “with tears” (Acts 20:31). Separatists could use a few more tears.

A desire to dominate

Separatists tend to produce some strong-willed leaders. In the conflicts of separatism, strength of will can be an asset; but it can also be a drawback. In the process of arriving at their positions of leadership, separatist leaders must guard against an insatiable desire to dominate everyone and everything and to build empires. If someone disagrees with us on some minor issue, we should resist the temptation to make a major issue of it, brand the offender as a new evangelical, and ostracize him from our fellowship. Separatists must ask God for humility. We do not know everything. We can yet learn from others. Our Lord was “meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29). We ought to emulate Him.

Hasty rejection of offenders

All separatists have made mistakes of judgment. Good men who are trying to take a stand for righteousness sometimes become involved in something or with someone who may seem inconsistent with a separatist position. They may have someone visit their pulpit who, in the judgment of other separatists, is not taking a proper stand.

Separatists need to learn to distinguish between occasional lapses or misjudgments, which are part of the frailty of human nature, and patterns of consistent compromise. The former must be looked upon with some charity, while the latter is more serious and demands a stronger stance. We ought not to make a man “an offender for a word” (Isaiah 29:21). John Ashbrook has rightly stated:

It is easy to separate from a brother because he has a speaker we would not have, supports a mission we would not support or recommends a school we would not recommend… . I have had speakers, supported missions, and recommended schools that I would not have, support, or recommend today… . Be careful not to run up the red flag for every mistake or differing decision. Wait to see if it is a pattern.5

Caustic language

Some separatists have evidently tried to imitate Martin Luther and other controversialists of his age (and other ages) in employing rather strong, colorful, and pungent language about their evangelical brothers and sisters. It is true that the New Testament uses some rather strong language in reference to apostates. However, separatists need to employ caution and restraint when speaking of those who are our brethren but with whom we may disagree. Tongues and pens need to be controlled by the Spirit.

A young lady once approached me in tears. She had written to a separatist leader, expressing disagreement with him on a minor point. She received a three-page diatribe in reply (which she shared) in which the man called her names and used very strong language, professing horror that anyone would dare to disagree with him. I was extremely embarrassed, since the writer of the letter was a well-known figure. “My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (James 3:10). Being a fundamentalist and battling for the faith does not give one the right to ignore plain Scriptural commands to use speech that is pleasing to God. “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Colossians 4:6). We are to be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). We are to put away “evil speaking” and “malice” (v. 31). No improper words ever escaped the lips of our blessed Lord. Let this be our example.

Public instead of private rebuke

At times, matters of serious import must be discussed in public, and proponents of erroneous views must be exposed in public. On the other hand, sometimes public discussion is most certainly not in order. Some separatists take to the printed page with barbs, innuendoes, and castigations of their brethren without ever checking privately and carefully to see if they have the facts straight. If a personal grievance or a compromise (real or imagined) has occurred, they make no effort to correct it privately, but simply blast away in some public organ. Broadside attacks and startling revelations about the supposed shortcomings of other brethren may make readable copy (depending upon one’s tastes), but such an approach may not be the finest and most productive method of dealing with problems. This is especially true when one is dealing with other brethren who take the same general position as they do.

Overcoming pitfalls

The matters discussed here should not in any way become a cause for the repudiation of the doctrine of separation. It rests upon a solid foundation: the Word of God. No Biblical doctrine should ever be rejected because of the faults and foibles of its advocates. However, its advocates should humbly seek the face of God and inquire about how to improve their testimony before other believers and the world. I certainly do not agree with everything that the early Baptist leader John Smyth wrote, but I think all separatists could profit by reading his last book. In it he confessed the bad spirit that characterized some of his earlier debates; and, while still maintaining what he viewed as truth and defending his right to argue for it, he pled for a proper spirit in so doing.6

God is concerned not only with the truth that we hold, but also with the spirit with which we hold it. When we stand before the Lord someday, He will examine “the counsels of the hearts” (1Corinthians 4:5). God desires “truth in the inward parts” (Psalm 51:6). Our prayer should be, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psalm 19:14). Our hearts must be pure before the Lord if we are to expect His blessing.

Some Closing Advice for Separatists

I have been involved in the separatist movement for many years. No finer group of men and women could be found anywhere, and my fellowship with them has been life-enriching and challenging. Most separatists, we believe, have a desire to do God’s will, to honor God’s Son, and to “adorn the doctrine of God” by a Spirit-filled life (Titus 2:10). How may this desire be accomplished? Here are seven suggestions.

We must base our position upon Scripture, not personal opinion

Some separatists find it difficult to separate between Scripture and personal opinion. We must avoid the danger of elevating our own personal tastes or opinions to the level of divine revelation. People with strong convictions (and most separatists are such) have difficulty distinguishing between their opinions and Scriptural principles. In an effort to avoid appearing wishy-washy or uncertain in areas of doctrine, some separatists go to an extreme and take hard, irrevocable stands on every minor issue as though it were a major item of the faith. Often they become quite emotional when confronted with the unreasonableness of their position or their attitude.

We must seek to be consistent but allow for inconsistency

It is hard for anyone to be completely consistent. We are human, and our humanness shows in our inconsistencies. Yet we need to seek to implement our separatist convictions consistently, to the best of our ability as God directs us. At the same time, we must realize that separatists are imperfect. We will sometimes say and do things with which other of our brethren will not completely agree. This does not call for immediate excommunication and isolation. It calls for conference, for prayer, and for efforts to come to an understanding.

We must allow for honest differences

Some separatists give the impression that to be a “true blue” separatist, everyone must hold the same positions and interpretations as they do. Artificial tests of fellowship are therefore created. If someone uses a different translation or approves a pantsuit or holds a different view on the question of divorce, some separatists make an international issue over it and brand the brother who differs a compromiser. We need to be able to distinguish minor points from major issues. We must be free to discuss subordinate theological issues on which we may disagree without making them a test of fellowship. Many separatists can do this. Regrettably, some cannot.

We must be factual and truthful

Vicious statements have sometimes been made about separatist and nonseparatist brethren that have no basis in fact. Our God “desirest truth in the inward parts” (Psalm 51:6). He also commands that we “speak every man truth with his neighbour” (Ephesians 4:25). In heart and lip we must be truthful. Righteous causes are not forwarded by lies. They are forwarded by truth.

We must maintain a balanced, fair view

Because a man is not a separatist does not mean that all he says or writes is worthless. For instance, Harold Lindsell’s books describing the battle over Scripture and defending the inspiration of Scripture are good books. Most of us would not endorse all of Lindsell’s associations and activities, but this does not mean we cannot benefit from what he has produced that is helpful and true to Scripture. We would not condone W. A. Criswell’s promotion of the Southern Baptist Convention, but who of us has not been blessed by some of his fine expositions of Scripture. The good qualities of a man can be appreciated without condoning his compromises. It is not a sin to declare that someone with whose position we may disagree has preached or written or performed in some way that is worthy and has been a spiritual blessing. (It does not follow, however, that we are free to use such men on our platforms, to address our churches and conferences.) Even the hireling prophet Balaam spoke some beautiful, helpful prophecies. Our Lord Himself preceded His rebuke of the Ephesian church by commending the believers there for the good things they had done (Revelation 2:2–4).

We must use winsome words, not senseless wranglings

Often public debates among fundamentalists are fueled by motives other than a desire to defend the truth. Men are instead defending their “empires,” seeking to create an image of success, and trying to put down other people in the process. Such antics must sicken the heart of God, and certainly they alienate some who might otherwise be our friends. Many arguments and discussions are neither necessary nor profitable. We need to develop the ability to distinguish between controversies that are necessary to defend the faith or protect the people of God, and controversies that are inspired by personal pique or carnal pride. God’s Word says, “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle” (Proverbs 18:19). Considerable discussion is taking place today as to why so many younger men raised in the separatist tradition are failing to take a good position and, in some cases, are backing off from the fray. One of the major reasons, it seems to me, is that they are disgusted with the lack of discernment on the part of some separatists who cannot distinguish between what is truly crucial to fellowship and what is not crucial. Some have made mountains out of molehills and have elevated minor matters to the status of major items of the faith.

We must guard our own lives

The fact that a man is a stalwart of the faith does not provide automatic protection from the sins of the flesh. Those of us who take the Scriptural position of separation should be watchful that we do not fall prey to the Devil (Galatians 6:1). Separatists have old natures too. Powerful spokesmen for the cause of separatism have sometimes fallen into gross sin and disgraced their Lord as well as the cause that they represented. Engaged as we are in public debates over Biblical questions, it is easy to drift away from the Lord in our hearts, become callused and cold, having all the correct positions but without the heart-warmth, tenderness, and devotion that should be evidenced. Our Lord warned the believers at Ephesus that they had straight doctrine but dying love (Revelation 2:2–4).

Conclusion: Maintain a Narrow Circle with a Wide Heart

Our blessed Lord is our example. He was the great separatist. His character is described as “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). He was perfectly balanced. He spoke gracious words and performed gracious deeds. He also spoke burning words and performed purifying deeds. He exemplified that which every separatist and every believer in Christ needs: balance. Our tendency is to become imbalanced.

C.H. Mackintosh, an English leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement, gave this cherished advice to separatists in 1856:

The grand difficulty is to combine a spirit of intense separation with a spirit of grace, gentleness, and forbearance; or, as another has said, “to maintain a narrow circle with a wide heart.” This is really a difficulty. As the strict and uncompromised maintenance of truth tends to narrow the circle around us, we shall need the expansive power of grace to keep the heart wide and the affections warm. If we contend for truth otherwise than in grace, we shall only yield a one-sided and most unattractive testimony. And, on the other hand, if we try to exhibit grace at the expense of truth, it will prove, in the end, to be only the manifestation of a popular liberality at God’s expense—a most worthless thing!7

Ernest Pickering (1928–2000) was a noted leader in American fundamentalism, having ministered as a pastor, seminary president, and leader in missionary organizations. He earned a ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and was a 40-year member of the Evangelical Theological Society. This article is an excerpt from his book Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, published by Regular Baptist Press. This book, along with his pamphlets, articles, and additional books, have widely influenced the fundamentalist and evangelical movements.


Ernest Pickering (1928–2000) was a noted leader in American fundamentalism, having ministered as a pastor, seminary president, and leader in missionary organizations. He earned a ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and was a 40-year member of the Evangelical Theological Society. This article is an excerpt from his book Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, published by Regular Baptist Press. This book, along with his pamphlets, articles, and additional books, have widely influenced the fundamentalist and evangelical movements.

Republished with permission from Baptist Bulletin © Regular Baptist Press. All rights reserved.

Notes

3 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 560.

4 John Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation (Painesville, OH: Here I Stand Books, n.d.), 20.

5 Ibid., 21.

6 John Smyth, “The Last Book of John Smyth,” in The Works of John Smyth, ed. W. T. Whitley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 2:733–750.

7 C. H. Mackintosh, “The Unequal Yoke,” Miscellaneous Writings, Book One (London: G. Morrish, 1856).

1119 reads

There are 15 Comments

pvawter's picture

I really appreciate the gracious separatism Pickering argues for here. While I have known some fundamentalists who were rancorous and petty, the vast majority in my experience seek to follow this pattern. May we all be so careful in our practice of holiness.

TylerR's picture

My favorite part is when Pickering moves from Criswell to Balaam in three sentences ...

Tyler Robbins is a pastor at Sleater-Kinney Road Baptist, in Olympia, WA, and an Investigations Manager with the State of Washington. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Aaron Blumer's picture

TylerR wrote:

My favorite part is when Pickering moves from Criswell to Balaam in three sentences ...

I don't think he meant to quite equate the two... but it's not the finest moment in the piece.

The whole platforms and conferences thing has always mystified me a bit. On one hand, I can see how in the context of what was going on, that kind of visible getting along could be seen as a kind of endorsement... but only because, at the time, there was a "choosing sides" dynamic. Normally, having a speaker at a conference shouldn't be seen as a stamp of approval on everything the guy says or does. All it should be taken to mean is "This guy has some things to say that are worth hearing." That could be the case even if they are "worth hearing" only in order to better understand something we disagree with.

In general, listening and understanding weren't highly prized activities at the time. (Some things never change!)

TylerR's picture

I know that's what he meant. I was aiming at humor ... and perhaps something else, too.

Tyler Robbins is a pastor at Sleater-Kinney Road Baptist, in Olympia, WA, and an Investigations Manager with the State of Washington. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

josh p's picture

I really appreciate the way this series has progressed. So many times when talking to people about separation the first thing they think of is the J. Frank Norris types. I agree with pvawter that most separatists that I have met at least try to be balanced. I guess it’s just inevitable that any movement/idea will be defined by its extremes. Off topic: I just read an account of Norris in some type of rivalry. It was believed that they defended themselves with machine guns but when asked about it he said, “Nah, all we had was sawed-off shotguns.”

Larry's picture

An interesting anecdote from MacArthur. He tells the story of how he was asked to speak at Jack Hayford's church, so he did. The Charismatic Businessmen's Luncheon saw that and assumed MacArthur's position on the gifts and invited him to speak.

Why? Because the platform caused confusion.

MacArthur goes on to tell how he spoke and if I recall correctly, he said it was the only time he was ever physically removed from the pulpit.

But the point is that his platform appearance sent a message.

BTW, how many here have upbraided certain fundamentalist institutions and churches and conferences for the people they invite? A lot. And why? Because they understand that platform appearances matter. 

Ron Bean's picture

BTW, how many here have upbraided certain fundamentalist institutions and churches and conferences for the people they invite? A lot. 

And how many of us have personally contacted those institutions and churches and expressed our concerns? I would venture not many. Don't we owe our brethren the courtesy of at least reaching out to them before separating?

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Larry's picture

Don't we owe our brethren the courtesy of at least reaching out to them before separating?

I think historically the answer has been "no" at least with respect to the requirement. Public words and public actions are worthy of public response. It might be good to reach out publicly, and it is certainly something I would encourage, but require? Owe? I don't see that. 

Of course there is context. We might treat someone speaking at Hammond differently than someone speaking at The Master's Seminary, or someone speaking at The Church on the Way differently than someone speaking at the Shepherd's Conference.  

When you do something in public, don't be surprised to be responded to in public.

I would add that I think separation is, to some degree, a matter of conscience. So we must ask, is there any reason that I might find that would salve my conscience? If not, then what good does reaching out do?

Bert Perry's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

BTW, how many here have upbraided certain fundamentalist institutions and churches and conferences for the people they invite? A lot. 

And how many of us have personally contacted those institutions and churches and expressed our concerns? I would venture not many. Don't we owe our brethren the courtesy of at least reaching out to them before separating?

We can give some space in one regard, IMO: I reject the teaching of many groups without ever having been a part of them.  Hence do I need to send a note about separation?  In some cases it might be a good idea, in others, not so much.  For example, I don't send many notes of separation to KJVO advocates because it would be like spitting into the wind.  Really, there are certain cases where I'll be willing to interact with members of a "renegade" church to see if they can be persuaded, but will abstain from sending letters to the leadership.  

However, if I'm separating from a group of which I was a part, I'd consider it a very good idea to explain why, and I've done so a few times.  Moreover, unless it's fairly urgent I "hit the road", I tend to do so before I leave in order to give the group a chance to consider what I have to say.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jay's picture

When you do something in public, don't be surprised to be responded to in public.

See, now this mystifies me slightly because we've had plenty of discussions on here about public stands taken (no good examples come to mind right now) and the response has always been "If you haven't approached them yourself, be quiet" in varying degrees.  I think that happened on the (Harvest  Heritage -edit) Christian Academy thread from whenever it was.

But now if we do something in public it's OK to address publicly?  That's been my guideline for a long time and it seems like I'm not in alignment with several for that very reason.  Maybe it just depends on the particular ox that's being gored that day.  I don't know.

The whole platforms and conferences thing has always mystified me a bit. On one hand, I can see how in the context of what was going on, that kind of visible getting along could be seen as a kind of endorsement... but only because, at the time, there was a "choosing sides" dynamic. Normally, having a speaker at a conference shouldn't be seen as a stamp of approval on everything the guy says or does. All it should be taken to mean is "This guy has some things to say that are worth hearing." That could be the case even if they are "worth hearing" only in order to better understand something we disagree with.

Thank you!  I know when I first came into fundamentalism this always confused me as well.  It's just a conference, not a blanket endorsement of the person in total.  That kerfuffle with CBTS Lansdale back in the day (when they had Mark Dever and whoever else in for their conference) completely blew my mind for this very reason.

You don't have to be my closest friend to be an ally, and I appreciate allies that are holding the line even if they are on the other side of the country.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

TylerR's picture

Jay, remember that God can use anybody ... like Dever ... or Balaam ... or (perhaps) like MacArthur ... or Judas ... or Jezabel

Tyler Robbins is a pastor at Sleater-Kinney Road Baptist, in Olympia, WA, and an Investigations Manager with the State of Washington. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Larry's picture

See, now this mystifies me slightly because we've had plenty of discussions on here about public stands taken (no good examples come to mind right now) and the response has always been "If you haven't approached them yourself, be quiet" in varying degrees.

No, that hasn't always been the response. There are a number of us who have never given that response as a blanket response. 

Ron Bean's picture

I didn't mean to imply that we forfeit our right to speak unless we contact the disobedient brother personally. (If that were the rule, we couldn't engage in our favorite activity! (SMILE!)

I do recall contacting JM years ago during the "Blood Controversy" and getting a personal response that clarified the matter. I also recall asking a well-known fundamentalist leader about his appearance with James Dobson and just being told that "was different".

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Aaron Blumer's picture

About platform appearances, they can definitely be misunderstood. The story about MacArthur above is example of a failure to communicate, on both sides, regarding what kind of event this was supposed to be. If it was one where different sides of an issue are expected to be heard, there would have been no problem. But because it was supposed to be exclusive on a certain point of doctrine -- views on the gifts -- JMac was not welcome.

When it comes to conferences of different sorts, though, on what points are they supposed to be exclusive? It kind of depends on the group and the event and what sort of claims they are making about their speakers. I really don't see why it's hard to communicate to both speakers and attendees that "this conference focuses on X. Speakers have a variety of views and practices in other areas and these are not necessarily endorsed by other speakers or the conference leadership." 

It might make for more interesting conferences in some cases. I'm thinking of two events at the moment where there were platform controversies: some years ago, there was an invite to have either Mohler or Dever speak at the GARBC annual conference (I can't remember which of them it was now). He was later disinvited. Example 2: a certain university had invited an SBC member to speak at a conference on some specific topic. Sorry to be so vague, but I can't find the conference info now or verify any details. But there was some controversy about that.  [Edit: This was actually the E3 Conference at DBTS, not BJU.... and the concern was about Rick Holland... Someone asked me about BJU's Horn sharing platform with Holland, alleging Holland is SBC. Having done a little digging now, it doesn't look to me like Holland is SBC. See https://e3pc.org/, and the bio here: https://www.rightnowmedia.org/Content/Speaker/1000145]

It should not be automatically assumed that use of a speaker is a blanket endorsement of everything the individual believes, teaches, or does... including whether the individual has all the same views on the particulars of separatist practice.

Rebuking in public for actions done in public

Jay had some thoughts on this above. I think we need to consider two factors on this: what's acceptable vs. what's helpful. The two may overlap entirely or they may not, and the "helpful" factor raises the question of "what are you trying to accomplish?"

Often, when we would be entirely within our rights to confront something publicly, it's kinder, more respectful, and more conducive to persuasion if we try a private effort first. It's not required, necessarily, but it's gracious, and if part of the aim is to win that person over or give them food for thought, they'll be less defensive if approached privately.

Another factor is public debate vs. public denunciation. These aren't the same thing. Debate isn't necessarily polemical, though they tend to merge. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think there should be a lot more friendly (and perhaps private) conversation and a lot less public polemics on many issues of controversy. 

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.