Moses and Rushdoony on Education: Doctrine from Numbers

The following discussion comes from R. J. Rushdoony’s series “Commentaries on the Pentateuch.” The commentary is Rushdoony’s; I serve only as copyist.

1 And the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, saying: 2 “Command the children of Israel that they give the Levites cities to dwell in from the inheritance of their possession, and you shall also give the Levites common-land around the cities. 3 They shall have the cities to dwell in; and their common-land shall be for their cattle, for their herds, and for all their animals. 4 The common-land of the cities which you will give the Levites shall extend from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. 5 And you shall measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, on the south side two thousand cubits, on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits. The city shall be in the middle. This shall belong to them as common-land for the cities.

6 “Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities. 7 So all the cities you will give to the Levites shall be forty-eight; these you shall give with their common-land. 8 And the cities which you will give shall be from the possession of the children of Israel; from the larger tribe you shall give many, from the smaller you shall give few. Each shall give some of its cities to the Levites, in proportion to the inheritance that each receives.” –Numbers 35:1-8

First, Levites were used as judges, because they were experts in the law. Second, they were to teach the law: they were the national educators.

Imagine the implications of this if applied to the present. It would mean a network across the United States of Christian schools, colleges, and universities, all concerned with establishing a Christian culture and upholding God’s law.

If this seems a visionary idea, we must remember that it once was done to a degree in the United States. Up to about 1900, about seventy-five percent of all U.S. colleges and universities were founded by Scottish Calvinists who were immigrants here. When I was a student, and first learned of this fact, I mentioned it with some awe to an elderly, retired Scottish pastor, a Presbyterian, and he referred to it as a Levitical task. The more trusting ways of his times, and the lack of a Van Tillian presuppositionalism, made it possible in time to subvert all these schools, but it was still a remarkable and Biblical accomplishment.

The Levites were able to go out from these cities to teach in every community; they could also establish in these cities centers of scholarship. A reading of the Old Testament seems to indicate that possibly the Levites were more faithful than the priests. After the Babylonian captivity, Levitical cities apparently were never rebuilt, according to rabbinic tradition.

Levitical city properties could not be alienated. At any time, a Levite could redeem a house he had sold if he had the funds. At the Jubilee, it reverted to him if he had failed to redeem it. The open land could not be sold at all (Lev. 25:29, 34).

In the division of the land, the Levites received four towns in each tribe except Judah and Simeon, where they received a total of nine, and Naphthali, which had only three Levitical cities (Joshua 21).

There was apparently a lack of full faithfulness to this allotment, because the Book of Judges indicates the unsettled and apostate nature of some Levites (Judges 17:7-13). In fact, it would appear from Judges 17:7-13 that some Levites became chaplains to wealthy men, also that their faith was syncretistic, if not pagan (Judges 18:1-31). In 1 Chronicles 6:54-81, we see that the record gives a different story than does Joshua. While there are a similar number of cities, they are not the same: one less in each of Judah and Benjamin, and two less in each of Dan and Zebulun. In other words, some plans and promises were discarded.

In the reformation of Jehoshaphat, the Levites, princes, and priests were used to teach in the cities of Judah, to bring about a return to God’s law (2 Chron. 17:7-9). Hezekiah’s reformation also relied on the Levites, among others (2 Chron. 29:3-19). However, at the end of the Babylonian captivity, proportionately fewer Levites returned to Judea (Nehemiah 7:39-45), only seventy-four as against 4,289 priests. In the New Testament, the priests are often mentioned, and the Levites rarely; Ezekiel 44:10-13 indicates that, before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the Levites had become especially apostate and deeply involved in idolatry. It is possible that the rise of the synagogue was a replacement of the Levites and their work.

As we have seen in Numbers 18:24-32, the tithe was given to the Levites, who then tithed the tenth of this tithe to the priests. This meant that instruction, when this law was obeyed, took priority in the faith and life of the people.

In our day, such an emphasis on education and scholarship on the part of the Christian community would revolutionize and recapitalize society. This law is also one reason why theonomy is unpopular in an age when the institutional church claims the total tithe and denies the right of anyone else to a penny of it!

Over the centuries, this Levitical aspect of God’s ministry has been the object of suspicion and control. When the medieval university developed, its scholars were monks, priests, or friars, i.e., under the jurisdiction of a church-controlled order. Protestantism has been no less eager to control its teachers. This has been an impediment to Christian scholarship. If Christian scholars cannot be trusted, are we to assume that only priests and pastors can be? Is it not wiser to recognize the propensity of all to sin and to trust God’s requirements above man’s controls? Men too often have more confidence in themselves than in God; they find it a pity that God will not take their advice!

This dispersal of the Levites meant that they were to have “no corporate existence as a tribe, but were rather fragmented in this way in a God-appointed isolation.” This was to place the stress on their teaching function rather than their corporate status. Our academic lemming, however, insist on tenure and on a host of controlling academic associations. The result has been a politically correct rigidity and an isolation from reality.

From Numbers, pp. 382-83

Bow Down, Politicians…and Everyone Else

by Juan J. Guajardo

Someone recently accused our pastor and church of preaching politics instead of the Bible. Let’s look at Church of the King McAllen in the light of Scripture.

First and foremost, our church is full of love. Love to talk to the person in the back row who might feel that he doesn’t belong. Love for the old widow who needs someone to talk with or to clear her computer of unwanted e-mails. Love for the brother fighting cancer and the sister dealing with depression. At Church of the King we try to bear one another’s burdens and fulfill the law of Christ.

Yes, many of our members preach politics, but always in the context of what God says about the civil government. Always in light of the gospel, the whole counsel of God. As a great church reformer has said, “Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.” To keep silent when our people, families, churches, communities, states, and nation are going to hell…that’s just plain irresponsible for any Christian.

Indeed, our pastor preaches the full Gospel. He does what the prophets in the Bible did. He preaches the Gospel of the kingdom as Jesus did. He preaches what was preached to Abraham. “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’” The word “gospel” means “good news.” The good news is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The gospel is also, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So it’s not even just about our own; it’s about His own, from every tongue and tribe.

Why did the Apostle Paul have such a desire to get to Rome? That’s where Caesar was. That’s where he could preach the gospel to the ruler of that world. Today we don’t have to travel to Austin or Washington, D.C. to preach truth to power; we can and must speak through every medium and at every opportunity. It is a godly zeal that drives us, not a zealot hatred.

False prophets preach salvation by politics. We preach that all authority—personal, familial, ecclesiastical, and civil—was given to Jesus Christ before He ascended to the Father. To preach that the individual can be redeemed and reformed but not the culture is pietistic; it is truncating the gospel.

Our pastor and leaders preach to anyone who will listen. We have a cloud of witnesses who are pulling for us, for they had the same objectives. We believe in being Puritan without being puritanical. Our church sings standing up and sitting down during our services. We sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs Sunday through Saturday. Every Sunday, we stand and confess our belief that Jesus died, was buried, and arose from the dead. We also partake of our Lord’s body and blood on a weekly basis. So we worship, believe and confess, and discern the body of Christ. Would that all churches did likewise.

Church of the King joins the psalmist in exclaiming,

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

“I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

Who Goes to Washington, Mr. Smith?

by Nina Guajardo

This isn’t an endorsement of Ron Paul.

I did notice the faithful (and intelligent) support Paul had in the last Republican Presidential primary three and a half years ago.

A life-long resident of Texas, I have had a soft spot in my heart for our governors-turned-presidential candidates. I also figured that a governor can run a government, but then, Romney proves that theory very wrong.

My father read to us Mr. Bojidar Marinov’s latest article explaining that today’s conservatives are former liberals, though they probably don’t mean to deceive us. It’s just that we’ve changed our terms. With Bush, Perry, Santorum, I hadn’t imagined them as part of the political machine (known as the two-party system) so clearly depicted in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” (bigwigs plotting and scheming in dark corners), but politicians do fall in line with the party’s agenda. These candidates mean well (I’m sure), but as we saw with Bush and those “bailouts,” they served only to further bury us under our own debt. These “conservatives” are not traditional constitutionalists.

The media has already chosen their favorite candidate who will be all too easy to tear down leading up to November (reminding me a little of Luke 6:26 “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…”).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus describes the persecution Christians would face for following him. I can imagine Madison or other founding fathers telling Paul something like “you’ll be blessed when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of our nation’s constitution” (pardon my almost blasphemy Matthew 5:11 is one of my favorite verses).

Ron Paul and Abraham Lincoln

                                   by Juan J. Guajardo

I wonder if Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are more concerned about each other or about Ron Paul. They cannot control what others say or find out about their respective records. They cannot control what the President says or has others say about them. And they cannot control what Paul says or does if he does not win the Republican nomination. The question I throw out today is this: What do you say Jesus would want Paul to do if someone else is nominated?

On the one hand, Paul’s bowing out graciously would give him a continued platform, steadfast and untainted. It would let him live to fight another day. It probably would also make his son’s future opportunities brighter and more likely. It would give the President an excellent opportunity to win, given what the political machinery, including governmental and news media, has given us glimpses of in its daily attacks on Romney, Gingrich, and the other Republican candidates. (By the way, the recent surfacing of Paul’s old newsletters is evidence that his opponents now consider him a viable threat to the establishment.)

But allowing the would-be antithetical struggle between good and evil political forces (i.e., Republican v. Democrat, you decide which is which) would quite possibly bring about terrible consequences. If the President is reelected, how many more murders of unborn babies would our federal government condone? How many more deaths would go down as “collateral damage” in military conflicts? How much more money will Americans be in debt? How many more federal czars and departments will be appointed and established? And just as scary, would electing a Romney or a Gingrich bring results much different from those of an Obama 2 administration?

On the other hand, what would happen if Paul decides to run as an Independent? No third party candidate has been elected President since 1860, and the odds would not be very favorable. But feasible? Why not?

Of course, most of Paul’s votes would come from either disgruntled would-be Republican voters, or registered voters who would otherwise stay home rather than voting for either of the two candidates. Though Perot and Bush netted 56% of the popular vote in 1992 (compared to Clinton’s 43%) the odds would obviously be in the President’s favor.

But Paul’s followers do not seem to suffer from a Party Spirit. They are not swayed by slick, debonair ways or striking good looks. They are undeterred by the old shibboleth about his supposed lack of electability; in other words, they refuse to treat elections as popularity contests. They appear to be people of principle. If this is true, Paul won’t lose votes over the next few months while every Republican who drops out leaves voters who might end up voting for Paul. If he can do quite a bit better than Perot’s 19%, he would have a decent chance to win.

As the primary season heats up and we begin to track the frontrunners, if the likely nominee is not Paul, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the nominee adopting more of Paul’s ideas into the party platform. Republicans will disregard Ron Paul at their own peril.

But political posturing and potential backlashes should not be the main concern of the Christian community. Our question on this issue must be clear and focused: should Ron Paul consider running as an Independent if he does not get the Republican nomination?

Which is better for our nation: to continue on the present track of big-civil-government Democrats and Republicans, or to take a stand to turn America in the opposite direction? Can our nation survive as we know her for another four years? And who is to say that things will change after that? Will our grandchildren be able to overcome the degeneration in which we leave them the USA?

As Lincoln put an end to the Whigs, maybe Paul will be the end of the Republicans. What do you think? What solutions or suggestions do you offer?

Christians had better pray and repent for the sins of our nation. Then we need to get off our knees and get to work to save our country…one heart and mind at a time.

Sonnet for St. Nina’s Day

My little girl turns twenty-four today;
Where did the years escape, and where
Have all my hugs and kisses gone? I pray,
Then rush a long embrace—no time to spare.

She is a woman now; I dare not talk
Or look to her as to a child; I will
Not shout or raise my voice lest she dare balk
And see me cross. For she’s my lady still.

The precious jewel that God has given me
Is but a loan. I must be diligent
To shape and polish her for Him to see.
I hope to please Him with the gem He lent.

I’ll care for her until my days are done,
Or give her to a man…if he’s the one.

The Necessity and Viability of American Christian Schools

by Juan J. Guajardo

We begin to see signs that God might extend mercy on the USA after all. America might get a king who will prove himself an effective leader against the encroachment of an overgrown civil government. He will implement a judicious fiscal policy with shrinking deficits, no bailouts, and no subservience to bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Reserve. He will defend the Constitution and strive to effect a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. He will work with Congress to reduce the function of both branches to the protection of every individual’s life, liberty, and property.

But barring a Great Awakening, after four years, or eight, Americans will be the same people they are before the election of any Republican candidate. Given a Great Awakening, many hearts will be just that: awakened. Such a step toward conversion, whether personal, corporal, or national, is necessary and greatly welcome. It would be a wonderful Pax Americana that facilitates the spreading of the Gospel.

And where must that gospel be spread? Everywhere, of course. Right now it is being preached in too few churches. The gospel preached to Abraham and preached by Jesus to sinners has been replaced by a humanistic, schizophrenic, anti-Christian message. The solution? President Obama has rightly stated it: “education.” Of course, what he means by education is indoctrination in the system just described.

When the grandparents of Ron Paul and Herman Cain were young, America’s schools became homes for the socialization of the child. Instead of the traditional Christian teaching of children to honor God with their knowledge, the system called for the training of good citizens, men and women who would grow to serve their state before their God.

Men and women of good will must work toward the solution for what ails our nation. Though not easy, the answers are simple. As usual, they must come from God’s people, the visible church.

COVENANT THEOLOGY

God is the only sovereign being. Without beginning and without end, he works through His Spirit and His people, beings with a beginning and no end. God made a couple of offers to Adam, who messed up but whose wife received a great promise. God then made a pact with Noah, then Abram, then Moses, then David. He also made personal covenants with many individuals throughout history. Finally, He gave the New Deal to all of mankind, the New and Everlasting Covenant through Jesus Messiah.

The deal is simple: obey the terms of the covenant. God is in complete control. He appointed the Church as His representative on Earth, with an oral and written rule of ethics to serve as His standard. If we abide by His explicit terms, we are blessed; if we do not abide in and by them, we are already condemned. He punishes the guilty for a few generations while blessing the faithful for a thousand.

As long as the church of Christ preaches only the blessings part, our education looks to Jesus as Santa Claus. As long as it preaches that man does not have to obey God’s laws, our education rejects the existence of hell and eternal separation from God. As long as it preaches that God used to save people differently in the Old Testament, our education becomes escapist and takes things out of context. Teaching covenant will confront the unbeliever with his sinfulness and make the humble aware of the grace available to him.

Men and women who are willing to follow God’s plan must accept His
1. transcendency and immanence (God is everywhere over all, and yet here with His own);
2. structure of hierarchy (God has his Church as His mouthpiece and representative);
3. rules for man (God gave us the Bible);
4. sanctions (God executes judgment on people as they respond to His ethical standard); and
5. sustaining principles (God promises a future, here on earth in history and in eternity…with or without Him).  Living by and in covenant will help a man become less humanistic and either more awakened or more sanctified.

The visible church’s lack of leadership has resulted in a secular schizophrenia, as R. J. Rushdoony calls it. The humanist mind is sometimes full of optimism and excitement, believing that man can do all things through himself who strengthens him. “Sí se puede”; “you can do whatever you set your mind to,” and so on. This pseudo-dominionism is a perversion of Proverbs 23:6-7.
            Do not eat the bread of a miser,
            Nor desire his delicacies;
            For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.
The scripture is talking about a person who is aware of who he is; in the case of the passage, a miser who knows he is one. Sadly, the church often leads the way in endorsing this prosperity-by-magic way of life.

On the other hand, the world (and the church with its own version) has adopted a worldview that wonders if man is going to be able to survive the evil in the world, implying that man probably won’t make it…unless, as well-meaning Christian escapists warn in their attempts to scare sinners into converting, Jesus comes back soon and raptures those who have said the sinner’s prayer. This anti-covenantal paradigm is anti-Christian to the core; it used to be un-American, too. It presupposes and self-fulfills an antinomian (against law) way of life.

Since Adam, man has been prone to wander from God’s commands to man’s own will and desires. Man wants to make and be his own law (autonomy) by which to live. The Bible teaches that man should live by every word/law that proceeds from the mouth of God. Though no preacher would say that men should break the Ten Commandments, many would say that those same laws do not apply either to non-Christians or to anyone today. But since every law imposes someone’s morality, the question is simple: by whose morality should man live? As Rushdoony wrote, By What Standard? (should we live). Greg Bahnsen answered the rhetorical question with his own book: By This Standard, meaning God’s written code of ethics, The Bible.

For the purposes of my present thesis, I must cut to the heart of the matter. (“More matter,” as Queen Gertrude would chide.) America will not survive as we know her if it continues in its direction away from God and His Law/Word. The way to turn around is through teaching, especially our languishing youth, over 90% of whom attend humanistic indoctrination classes eight hours a day, five days a week, for at least 180 days a year.

THE ANSWER

Here’s some good news: it won’t take a majority. It never has taken a majority to turn the world upside down. What we need is a sold-out, well-equipped minority. I am talking of the education of the core group. Rather than sending covenant children to be trained in schools where they are taught humanism for all of life, followers of Christ must obey God’s law and spare their children. Jesus said “Let the little children come to me.” He did not tell the little children to go be salt and light in the Roman educational campuses.

Many Christian parents are afraid to take the leap and teach their children at home. Some would love to send them to a Christian school but cannot afford to pay double tuition (in property taxes to the state whether they send their kids there or not, and to the Christian school). Many excellent articles, even books, have been written encouraging and challenging parents to obey the biblical mandate; but my objective here is to show that Christian schools can be made viable and affordable.

The answer is the tithe. If every Christian tithed, America would be filled with Christian schools from sea to shining sea. Again, for our purposes here, we won’t delve into the different tithes commanded in the Bible. We will accept that God the Father calls non-tithers robbers (Malachi 3), and that God the Son told his listeners to tithe (Matthew 23).

Let’s look at some numbers. Consider a church of 100 tithers with an average income of $40,000, around the national average. That’s $4,000,000, and the tithe without even looking at offerings would be $400,000. Budget annually $40,000 for pastoral pay and another $20,000 for any other labor for the church. From the remaining $340,000, subtract $120,000 for building payment and expenses. From the remaining $220,000, subtract another $100,000 for maintenance and other expenses.

The remaining $120,000 could go to Christian education. With $95,000, a small staff can be paid:
One Headmaster/Lead Teacher:  $20,000
Five Teachers @$15,000 each:   $75,000
The other $25,000 can be used for materials, supplies, furniture, and misc.
This is not much of a budget compared to the public school market, but it would be a starting point. Or instead of hiring six teachers, a school could begin by hiring three and paying them twice as much.

Though admittedly simplistic and probably naïve, this fiscal analysis can work. Now, many American churches do not have 100 members, let alone tithers. First, with half the membership, they could probably afford to offer half of the educational program. Families belonging to small churches might appreciate an intimate, personal school setting for their children. Second, we don’t need one school per congregation; we need a catholic spirit of believers willing to work inter-congregationally. There is no good reason why a small Pentecostal church cannot collaborate with a Methodist, an independent, and even an Adventist church.  Granted, jealousies do exist on the part of some pastors who don’t want their families involved with a school housed in or associated with another congregation. The relationship could tempt the family to consider the church at which the school is located, and maybe leave their present church. Those pastors should consider getting their own church involved in Christian education.

Faithfulness in tithing would make free or drastically reduced tuition possible for the children of covenant keepers. Parents, and even church members with no children, would know that part of their tithes is funding most of the education available to church children. Tithers are responsible for being informed about how their tithes are being spent.

CONCLUSION

Ideally, church families would want to and actually carry out the instruction of their own children, in obedience to Moses’ command to teach our little ones at all times of the day all the things that God wants them to know (Deuteronomy 6). Where these families exist, the church should be disposed to assist the family in the training of those children.

But what about all those families who do not home school? Does their unwillingness or inability excuse the church from its responsibility? On the contrary, this situation only magnifies the role of the church. Its leaders must create opportunities to teach children and youth beyond the Sunday school, Children’s Church, and Catechism classes. One to three hours a week of biblical teaching cannot compete with 40 hours a week of anti-biblical teaching.

If our churches do not adjust their priorities and place Christian education at the top, we should not be surprised when our children leave the church as soon as they have the liberty to do so. We shouldn’t say they leave the faith, for they are merely deepening the faith that has been inculcated into them for years.

John Calvin did not see much separation between church and school in terms of ministry. Professor Vander Walt writes, “According to [Calvin], church and school were mutually dependent and one could not think of one without involving the other. In distinguishing the two, [he] in no way separated them.” Neither did Calvin make a distinction between the sacred and secular, for all things belong to God and there is no truth that is not His.

A better Great Awakening than the one of which I wrote earlier can take place if Christian families and churches do their jobs in training up our children in the way they should go. Without knowing good and evil, our little ones can learn languages, sciences, and history. They will have understanding of the times and know what Christians ought to do. They will become citizens of godly impact on their communities, not for the sake of their country but for the sake of their God. May God not damn the United States of America.

Dark Eyes

Today is Nezi’s birthday.  Here’s a draft of part of a chapter I wrote about her.  Happy birthday, my little lamb.

The year 1992 was hell on earth for us.  I lived through the summer of my discontent, and Sylvia suffered through a clinical depression that didn’t let her eat or sleep for three months.  When she was able to ingest food, she usually threw it up within minutes.

That June Sylvia made friends with a very nice lady named Rose, who used to pray continually.  One day she gave Sylvia a little booklet bearing the name God’s Pills.  “Read these verses three times a day,” she said. “After you read them, put your name in there and personalize each verse.”

Sylvia faithfully began to read and recite from that booklet.  Her favorite passage came from the Book of Revelation:  “They [the believers] overcame him [the Enemy] by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony.”  She kept repeating it so much that she made me mad.  I didn’t want to hear about any overcoming or testimonies, but I let her talk to herself and usually just tuned her out.

Besides the anguish of looking at Pablo everyday and the reminder that he was to her, Sylvia also had to deal with a very difficult pregnancy. She actually weighed less on the day of delivery than at conception.  The only thing that got her through the ordeal was her faith.

During labor I asked her if she wanted to talk about a name, but she solemnly said, “I
want God to give it to us.”

I didn’t roll my eyes but did say, “OK, we’ll wait and see then.”

Every time the contraction pains came, Sylvia would start her “I am an overcomer; I
overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of my testimony.”  She must have quoted it fifty times that morning.  Later she told me that every time she said the verse, off to her right side she could see the profile of Jesus.  When she turned to face him, he would be gone.  I just thought it was all a little spooky, seeing faces and things.

Sylvia had the baby before noon; then she was wheeled to a recovery room on the same
floor.  After Pablo’s C-section she had been inactive for a couple of months.  With Nina, it had been two or three weeks.  But now, three hours after the delivery, we were walking down the hall to catch a glimpse through the window of the ward for newborns.  I cannot explain her strength; she said she didn’t even feel her legs as she strode along.  It was eerie how firm her steps seemed as her slippers reflected off the shiny white tile.  There was no slouching, no dragging; there was no sign of the weakling that I had checked in that morning.

“Inez,” she said when we were back in the room.  “I like the name Inez.”

“Fine, let’s find out what it means,” I said as I picked up the phone to ask the ladies downstairs for a book of names.

An hour later a nurse came in with two little books. I immediately opened the one
on girls’ names and went to the letter “I”.  Looking across to find the right column, I read that Inez comes from Spanish/Portuguese origin, and that it means lamb.  When I told Sylvia she started to shake, and the tears began pouring down to her chin.  “What is it now?” I asked completely befuddled.

“Don’t you get it?” she asked.  “He gave us the name.  Remember?  ‘I overcome by the
blood of the lamb and the word of my testimony.’  Through her blood and my faith I am
overcoming.”  I had no comeback for that one.  I just stood there dumb and motionless.

That evening Sylvia’s sister Fina came to visit.  She was carrying a bouquet of white, pink, and yellow carnations in a white porcelain vase. The vase was in the shape of a lamb.  “You’re not going to believe this, Fina; but do you know what her name means?” asked Sylvia.

“No.”

“It means lamb.”

“Wow,” said Fina, “you’re not going to believe this, but every gift I looked at in the shop kept pointing to lambs!”

“Oh, I believe it,” laughed Sylvia.  And she proceeded to tell her sister about the day’s experience.

In about five minutes the nurse walked in wheeling a bassinet, and in it, tightly wrapped in a pink flannel blanket, lay Sylvia Inez Guajardo.  Her mother introduced Inez to her aunt, and the baby squinted and began to cry almost sentimentally.

That was just the first time the child would cry like that.  I resented it at first, seeing her big and round, dark, chocolate eyes weeping and whining as if her feelings had been
hurt.  I did not realize that I was beginning to reap what I had been sowing for a long time.

Throughout the pregnancy, Sylvia’s depression had been intensifying.  Around the thirty-eighth week, Dr. Vela and Dr. Wilson suggested inducing labor so that Sylvia could
begin treatment sooner; but I balked at the idea.  The medication wouldn’t allow her to nurse, so I insisted that we wait a few weeks.  Both obstetricians had said that the colostrum produced by the mother during the baby’s first two weeks is very helpful for his immunological system.  Sylvia did not resist; she delivered on time then breast-fed for about ten days.

“Please, honey,” she begged around the middle of the second week, “I can’t go on any more.  Please let me go to the doctor.”

“All right,” I finally gave in.  “We’ll go tomorrow.”

Every other week, I drove her to the psychiatrist in McAllen.  I couldn’t understand how he was helping her since he spent most of the time reclining behind his desk and listening to her; then he would just tell her not to worry.  I think the best thing he did for her was to prescribe a medicine that made her drowsy and gave her a chance to sleep.
Her body was able to rest and recuperate from the months of exhausting,
sleepless torture.

Of course, most of that torture was administered by yours truly. Our marriage was in shambles, and we both agreed that it was her fault.  But Sylvia did not give up on life.  She would sit down and hold Inez tightly to comfort herself.  “I have to live.  I have to live for her,” she kept repeating to herself, oblivious to my menacing presence.

“Stop exaggerating!” I would shout at her.

And all she’d say was, “All right, Juan, I’ll stop.”

Knowing that she had a little life that depended on her motivated Sylvia to eat and move around.  She seemed to take a strange delight in rocking the baby’s little body; at least it
looked strange to me.  I confronted her one late Saturday night in November, and she didn’t want to answer me.

“What’s the matter?” I accosted her.  “You got some sordid secret you’re keeping
from me?”

“No, honey, I’ve bared my whole self to you.”

“Well then, why do you keep on looking at Inez when I’m talking to you?”

“Can’t you understand?” she asked.  “I need the warmth of her little body.  That’s why I hold her tightly and rock her so. She comforts and encourages me.  She’s the one person in
my life who needs me, and I only want to live because I don’t think anyone will take care of her if I’m not there.”

I stormed out of the house and went outside to mow the lawn.  After furiously tugging on the mower chord several times, I finally got it to start.  The knee-high grass made it easy for me to open the throttle full blast and be able to shout as I continued working.  “Thanks a lot,” I shouted at God.  “You really know how to kill a guy.  What did I ever do to you?  Why did you give me this woman?”

I said a lot of other blasphemous things to Him, saving some choice descriptors for Sylvia.  I didn’t know that she was sitting by the window hearing everything that I was yelling.  It wouldn’t have mattered; I said those things to her face frequently during those days.  I couldn’t see her softly humming to the baby, her sorrowful tears trickling down and wetting Inez’s little chest.

I used to be very tender with Sylvia myself, but that was years before.  When we were dating, I was a sweet and charming guy.  When we were newlyweds, I was a romantic young husband.  But when it came to living “in sickness and in hard times,” I saw myself
justified in being a jerk.

Inez was our third born.  And according to the psychologists of the latter part of the twentieth century, third born children tended to be independent and daring.  Not so with Nezi, as I started calling her when she began to crawl.  She exhibited more second-born characteristics, and after a couple of years I began to understand why.  She was the second born girl.  Though she was almost five years younger than Nina, Nezi immediately displayed a need for acceptance and companionship.  But it was not just for Nina; we noticed that she was especially drawn to me.  Whether driving down Highway 107 or going for a walk when Pablo could still move his legs, Nezi always wanted to be next to me.  She would begin to whine and reach for me when Nina didn’t let her ride up front or hold my hand.  Her melancholy dark eyes would look up at me as if she wanted me to pet her.

But there was another side of Nezi that slowly began to break down my barriers.  Even as a toddler she would laugh at my corny jokes. It was uncanny, for there was no way she could know the meanings.  I think she just knew that the tone of my voice meant I was delivering a punch line. “Así era Sylvia con su papá,” my mother-in-law said to me many times.

Besides letting me know that she needed my help constantly, Nezi also had a strong desire to please her father.  She was always hungry for attention, “Look, daddy, I can hang from the swings,” or “Watch me, daddy, I can roller blade!”  She really wanted to impress me.  I still believe that the abuse she and her mother endured from me while she was in the womb made an impact on the way my daughter related to me in her early years.

Along with her attachment and dependence on me came a fear of disappointing or angering me.  Though she enjoyed my cheerful side, she couldn’t handle it when I’d become serious and begin to scowl.

I remember one time when she was three.  We were low on groceries, so Sylvia left the
kids with me to go to HEB.  Busy watching the Dallas Cowboys battle the Washington Redskins on Monday Night Football, I forgot that I was supposed to be baby-sitting. During a commercial break I walked to the kitchen to get a drink, and I saw the three of
them with cereal all over the floor.  Nezi was sitting on the table with the box on her lap, and Nina was at the counter spilling milk as she tried to serve the party.  The Cowboys were losing at that point, so my fuse was short.  I shook my index finger at each one and began to browbeat them and shout at the top of my lungs.  “What are you kids doing in here?  Nina, how can you explain this?”

“I’m sorry, daddy; but we were hungry.”

“Well why didn’t you ask me for food?”

“We did, we did!  You never said anything, so we thought it was OK.”

“But why did you have to make such a mess?  And you, get off from there, Inez!”

Nezi had been sobbing the whole time, but when I addressed her she broke down uncontrollably.

“All right, all right, let me get you down; and let’s start to clean up, kids.”  But my softening made no difference to Nezi.  She cried all the more, so I gave her three swats in an attempt to get her quiet.  But my foolish attempt to discipline only made her more emotional.

“No, daddy, no!  I want my mommy now,” she cried.

“Well, she’s not here right now, so just get quiet.”  She stopped her whining but continued to whimper with intermittent sighs.

Right then and there I repented of being a disgraceful father.  Nezi fell asleep crying that
night, and I learned a lesson I hope never to forget.  My little girl was suffering for my own
stupid sake.

Several good things happened to us around 1995.  Besides the breakthrough episode in the
kitchen, my mind also became gradually renewed once I accepted that Pablo’s condition had ultimately been sent by divine providence.  And as all of this took place, I became
fonder of Nezi.  At first it was like trying to make up for all the love I hadn’t given her early on, but little by little I came to feel a caring and tenderness for my daughter.  And as I got closer to her, I also began to get closer to her mother.