On the Snake in the Garden (Hint: There was no talking snake in the Garden of Eden)

Welcome to Unpopular Opinions: Church Edition 

Today's topic – The "serpent" in the Garden of Eden

Here are a few spoilers: The Bible never says the "serpent" was a snake; snakes are not our enemies; followers of Christ have a real enemy and his name is Satan; Satan is not a snake, nor does the Bible say that he ever morphed himself into the form of a snake.

"For our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12)

Let's dive in. 

This is a pet project (pun intended) I’ve been working on since 2021 when a well-meaning friend stated that “man and snake are at war with each other … because God spoke it into existence” in Genesis 3. Sadly, many people seem to believe this. I even recently sat in a church service where a pastor I deeply respect preached about the "snake" in the Garden, encouraging the congregation to "cut the head off snakes" in their lives.

As a Christ-follower, and also someone who sees beauty and purpose in all of our Creator's creations, I have felt for a while that it is past time for the church to stop spreading harmful myths that demonize God's creation in the physical world, and turn our focus back toward our very real everyday battle in the  spiritual realm.

In order to turn the tide, though, I knew I needed more than my personal opinion; I needed Scriptural evidence. I am a journalist by trade, so like any good journalist, I started investigating. I would like to share with you – and anyone who is willing to read or listen – the results of that investigation. 

Let’s start at the beginning: in Genesis 1:24, God created snakes. 

Well, not just snakes: (24) “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature, each kind of livestock and crawling thing, and each kind of earth’s animals!” And that is what happened: (25) God made each kind of the earth’s animals, along with every kind of livestock and crawling thing. And God saw how good it was."

Let us pause for a moment. God created “each kind of living creature,” every “crawling thing, and each kind of earth’s animals!” This includes every single species of snake that has ever existed. And that’s not all, He called them “good.” Who are we then, born into sinful flesh (Psalm 51:5), to label “evil” what God, Himself, has called “good”? 

Now, I’m going to jump out of scriptural order for a minute for the sake of cross-referencing, because I feel that is an important part of any theological study. So, is there anywhere else in the Bible where God say’s snakes are God’s good creation? 

 Nehemiah 9:6 says, “You are the Lord; you alone crafted the heavens, … the earth, and everything in it; … you keep giving all of them life.” 

Does “everything in” the earth include snakes? Of course it does. For any self-proclaimed Christian who likes to say, “the only good snake is a dead snake,” remember that it is God who “keep(s) giving all of them life.” 

Psalm 104:24 says, “How numerous are your works, Lord! You have made them all wisely; the earth is filled with your creations.” 

 Job 12:10 states “that the life of every living thing rests in His control” 

How about the New Testament? 

John 1:3 says, “Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.” 

Ok, so we have determined that snakes ARE God’s creation, an animal which He called good. But what about the Garden of Eden? That changed things for snakes, right? 

First of all, I want to clarify that, despite what most children’s Bible story books may depict, the Bible does not actually say there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, just as it never says the forbidden fruit was an apple. 

Let’s pick apart Genesis 3:1-5. I will begin with the English Standard Version, since it is a direct and highly reliable translation: 

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 

The original Hebrew word that has been translated in English Bibles to “serpent” is nachash (Strong's Hebrew Lexicon - H5175), a masculine noun derived from a verb root-word by the same spelling (Strong's H5172). Alternative transliterations for nachash include nahas, nahash, and Ha-Nachash, but these are all variants of the same word. 

Strong’s Concordance and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance both use the following words to define nachash: to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; to prognosticate; divine (as in the practice of divination); enchanter; to practice divination; observe signs; learn by experience; diligently observe; practice fortunetelling; take as an omen. 

Now I would like, for a moment, to take into consideration the translation of Genesis 3 according to the International Standard Version, which gives yet another meaning for "nahash." But first, here are some endorsements for ISV translation found on https://www.logos.com/: 

Endorsements

 “After perusing the ISV, I was agreeably surprised and impressed. The goal of making the translation "literal and idiomatic" has certainly been achieved. The readability and reliability is delightful. I believe this translation should be well received and appreciated.” —Dr. Jack MacArthur, Voice of Calvary 

“I have not been a fan of the modern translations, but the International Standard Version New Testament is a refreshing exception! Terrific! In my opinion, the ISV truly is the most readable and accurate English language translation of the Bible ever produced. When the Old Testament is completed, I plan to undertake a Prophecy Bible using the ISV.” —Chuck Missler, Koinonia House Ministries 

“In the midst of a flood of erroneous so-called new translations of the Bible, it is refreshing to find the International Standard Version of the New Testament. It is up-to-date in modern research and Greek syntax and grammar, yet it is easy to read. I recommend this translation to anyone who wants a reliable study Bible.” —Dr. Robert A. Morey, Faith Defenders 

Now that we’ve established the trustworthiness and validity of the ISV translation, let’s look at Genesis 3 again. 

The Temptation and Fall 

3 Now the Shining One[a] was more clever than any animal of the field that the LORD God had made. He[b] asked the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You are not to eat from any tree of the garden’?” 

2 “We may eat from the trees of the garden,” the woman answered the Shining One,[c] 3 “but as for the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You are not to eat from it, nor are you to touch it, or you will die.’” 

4 “You certainly will not die!” the Shining One[d] told the woman. 5 “Even God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you’ll become like God,[e] knowing good and evil.” 

A footnote for the ISV’s translation of “Shining One” on https://biblehub.com/isv/genesis/3.htm states:

 Footnotes: a 3:1 The Heb. word Ha-Nachash means the Shining One; or the Diviner; i.e. one who falsely claims to reveal God’s word; or the Serpent; and so through 3:14; cf. Isa 14:12; Eze 28:13-14 

So what is the significance of the traditional translation of “serpent” being changed to “Shining One”?

Let’s look at Ezekiel 28:13-16 together, which most theologians agree is an allegory describing Lucifer’s fall: 

English Standard Version 

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire,[a] emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings.[b] On the day that you were created they were prepared. 

14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you;[c] you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 

15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 

16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you,[d] O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 

 This, to me, is probably one of the most important cross-references on this topic. The book of Ezekiel clearly states that Lucifer, in his perfect angelic form, covered in sparkling jewels (some might even say “shining”), was in the Garden of Eden. Not only was he in the Garden as an angel, a cherub, but he was there prior to sin and unrighteousness being found in him. 

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” (Genesis 2:15, ESV) 

 In looking at these two verses together, we can safely come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve not only walked and talked with God in the Garden, but also – at the very least – would have been familiar with God’s highest-ranking angel, Lucifer, the “Shining One,” who was (at least sometimes) present in the Garden with them. 

Before we go any further, I do want to clarify that, according to the Bible, angels were not beautiful women in flowing gowns. They are often described as giant creatures that are terrifying to look at.¹ 

Isaiah 6:2 

Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 

Ezekiel 1:5-9 

And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. 

Matthew 28:2-3 

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 

Revelation 10:1 

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire. 

Angels “sparkled like burnished bronze.” Their “appearance was like lightning” with faces “like the sun” and “legs like pillars of fire.” 

Does this sound like a creature that Adam and Eve might have described as the “Shining One”?

Additionally, almost every encounter between an angel and a human throughout the scriptures begins with the angel stating, “Fear Not!” (Daniel 10:8-19, Luke 1:11-13, Genesis 21:1-21, Luke 2:1-12, Matthew 28:1-10, Acts 27:1-26) 

We understand now that they were shining, but were they fearsome? 

Let’s look back for a minute at the word nachash or Ha-Nachash, the ancient Hebrew word that is translated to “serpent” in most English Bibles. 

As we do so, however, I want to point out that the Bible contains five references to a creature of old that was referred to as Leviathan (Job 3:8, Job 41, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1.) 

In Isaiah 27, Leviathan is referred to as a “piercing serpent,” a “crooked serpent,” and a “dragon” that lies in the midst of the sea (v. 1, KJV). 

According to https://www.blueletterbible.org and Strong’s Concordance, both references to “serpent” in Isaiah 27 use the exact same original Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 3: nachash. 

In the book of Job, chapter 41, this Leviathan is described as such a fearsome creature that "the mere sight of him is overpowering. ... His eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. ... His chest is hard as a rock ... (and) when he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing."

Does this "serpent," this nachash, sound like a snake? Or does it sound more like a giant, fire-breathing dragon?

Let’s now look at the book of Revelation, which has a direct reference to the “ancient serpent” of Genesis 3.

Revelation 12:7-9

 “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 

Many theologians agree on two things in this particular piece of scripture. The first is that the phrase “that ancient serpent” is a reference to the Garden of Eden. 

The second is that “the great dragon” mentioned here is not the animal we know as a snake, which can mean only one thing: the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden was not any of the animal species created by God that we now call snakes.

While many scholars believe that the war in Heaven and the subsequent casting down of Satan and his angels happened prior to the creation of mankind, I personally have found no Biblical evidence to confirm this, or even to hint at what point in the history of the earth this angelic mutiny occurred. 

However, taking Ezekiel 28 into account, it is my personal belief and understanding of scripture that Lucifer, as a glorified, shining angel – who very possibly looked something like a dragon – walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, and that his fall occurred during their time in the Garden. I find it possible, and even probable, that his attempts to turn both angel-kind and mankind against God were part of the same coup. 

It does not make sense for me to believe that Adam and Eve would have taken advice from an animal over God’s word, since animals were placed underneath their authority (Genesis 1:26). But according to Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:9, humans are “a little lower than the angels.” 

In a business setting, if a company has an owner, a general manager, a shift manager, and blue-collar workers, the shift manager is not likely to take advice from a worker who tells them to disobey an order that came straight from the owner of the company. However, if the general manager were to tell the shift manager they had gotten the owner’s message wrong, the shift manager would very likely trust the advice of their immediate superior.

This analogy paints a perfect picture of what I believe happened in the Garden. I cannot believe that Adam and Eve would listen to the word of an animal over the word of God. But what about God’s most trusted angel, who was technically higher than both Adam and Eve on the scale of authority? Before corruption was found in him, God trusted Lucifer, so when he told Adam and Eve their understanding of God’s command was wrong, why wouldn’t they have trusted him, too? 

Let me remind you that one translation or interpretation of nachash is “one who falsely claims to reveal God’s word.” Isn’t that what Satan does? Throughout the scriptures, he repeatedly takes God’s word and twists it.

Why then, with so many meanings to choose from, including “Shining One,” someone who “diligently observes” and “practices divination (witchcraft),” and “one who falsely claims to reveal God’s word,” have we, as an English-speaking people, accepted that this very complex ancient Hebrew word must simply mean “snake”? Because someone, long ago, who was translating ancient Hebrew into English decided nachash, which can also mean serpent (in reference to any animal that makes a hissing noise, including giant fire-breathing dragons) means “snake.” 

Before I close out, there is one key cross-reference I feel is important to look at: 

Genesis 3:13-15 (ISV) 

Then the LORD God asked the woman, “What did you do?” 

“The Shining One misled me,” the woman answered, “so I ate.” 

The Penalty of Sin 

The LORD God told the Shining One, 

“Because you have done this, you are more cursed than all the livestock, and more than all the earth’s animals. You’ll crawl on your belly and eat dust as long as you live. 

“I’ll place hostility between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. He’ll strike you on the head, and you’ll strike him on the heel.” 

Many will quote this scripture as proof that the serpent was a snake, and therefore all snakes are now evil or satanic. Again, I would claim that this is a misinterpretation. 

Let’s look at Revelation 12:3-5 and 13-17 (ISV): 

Then another sign appeared in the sky: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on its heads. Its tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky and knocked them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that it could devour her child when it was born. She gave birth to a son, a boy, who is to rule all the nations with an iron scepter. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne. (3-5) 

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the boy. However, the woman was given the two wings of a large eagle so that she could fly away from the serpent to her place in the wilderness, where she could be taken care of for a time, times, and half a time. … The dragon became angry with the woman and went away to do battle against the rest of her children, the ones who keep God’s commandments and hold on to the testimony about Jesus. (13-17) 

Now, looking back at Genesis 3 through a prophetic lens, it seems clear to me that what these verses are saying is, though all of Earth has fallen under the curse of sin, Satan is the most cursed being in creation (not snakes). Furthermore, “You’ll crawl on your belly and eat dust as long as you live” references Lucifer’s fall, when the great dragon was stripped of his wings/status as an angel of God. 

As for “I’ll place hostility between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. He’ll strike you on the head, and you’ll strike him on the heel,” Revelation explains the meaning of this well. Satan would be at war with woman because a woman would bring the Savior, who would defeat him, into the world. Who are Satan’s offspring? The fallen angels who sided with him against God (i.e. demons). What other “offspring” are they making war with? “The ones who keep God’s commandments and hold on to the testimony about Jesus" (i.e. Christians). 

And what about the striking on the heal and crushing the head part? Ephesians 6:15 says when we put on the full armor of God, our feet (are) fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. Our feet carry the gospel. Of course Satan and his offspring will strike the heal of those who hold on to the testimony about Jesus. He wants to stop us from carrying the gospel to the world. But a strike at the heal is rarely ever a fatal wound. Crushing the head is always a fatal wound. Genesis 3 is telling us that Satan and his followers will do everything in their power to stop the gospel, but they will ultimately fail, because through Christ Jesus, we have the power to crush their heads. 

(And just so I’m clear, those would be the heads of our spiritual enemies: Satan and his demons. Not snakes, which are beautiful, beneficial animals that God created and called “good” along with the rest of His magnificent creation. Please do not kill snakes.) 

 

---

1 For clarification, I am not claiming that any of the angels described in the following verses could be Lucifer. All of these angelic descriptions happened post-fall. These examples are given simply for the purpose of creating a mental image of what angels may look like based on Biblical descriptions of them, for the purpose of understanding why Adam and Eve might have referred to Lucifer in his angelic body as "the Shining One." ^↩

When friendship doesn't "go both ways"

 

Throughout my life I have often heard the phrase, "Friendship goes both ways." This phrase usually comes as an excuse for why a person is ending a friendship with someone they feel does not make an equal effort in the relationship. I never thought much about it, and often even thought I understood and agreed with the sentiment. Recently, however, I've peeled back the layers of this phrase and what it truly implies, and I have come to a new opinion. 

For the first time in my life, this phrase was recently thrown at me as a way to imply that I was the friend who was failing to put effort into the friendship. The irony is that, the friend who accused me of not making an effort is someone who has been invited into my home at least twice a month, every month for two years, for a highly exclusive social club I host. This friend is someone I invited, along with their entire family, over to swim and eat dinner at my house multiple times this past summer. This friend is someone I would ask to come along on shopping trips with me, sans-kids -- a sort of mom's day out. 

And this friend, a mere three days after sitting in my home, eating and drinking from my antique heirloom china, told me that "friendship goes both ways," and she could not remember the last time I had invited her to hang out. 

I hadn't thought about it before, but being forced to look back in retrospect, I realized that the friend who made this accusation had only actually extended an invitation to me to spend time together one time that I could remember in our many years of friendship, and that one time was well over a year ago. But as I told her, to me, friendship was not about keeping tallies. 

I feel that this accusation, however, has led me to more closely examine what it means to be a friend, and especially the meaning of the phrase, "Friendship goes both ways."

I met my first best friend when I was three years old. While we have gone through periods where our lives have grown apart (and come back together, and grown apart again), our loyalty to one another has never wavered. 

Looking back, I remember, as a small child, frequently having her spend the night in my home, and even taking her along on family camping trips with my family. I do remember at one point asking my parents why I was never invited to spend the night at her house. I don't remember what their answer was, but it didn't matter. I accepted it and moved on. I was just happy that when I invited her to my house, the answer was almost always a resounding "yes". Our friendship did not depend on her asking me over to her house, in response to me having her over at mine. The fact that I was never invited on her family vacations didn't stop me from inviting her on mine.

Now, as adults, we live in separate states and both live very busy lives. From time to time, she will be on my heart and I will send her a text to see how she is doing. She always responds and is glad to hear from me. 

One day, she apologized for never thinking to text me first. Her life is so busy, it just doesn't cross her mind, and she was afraid I would start thinking of her as a bad friend. I assured her that didn't matter to me. I was just happy that she replied when I texted her, and I didn't ever want her to feel less-than for not initiating a conversation. 

Looking back on this, I realize that I've never had the "friendship goes both ways" mentality, at least in the tit-for-tat context. It has never occurred to me to keep a tally on who initiates more in the friendship. 

Upon digging deeper, I began thinking about how each of us has vastly different personality types. Some people are highly extroverted. These will be the friends who are constantly making the effort to call and plan hangouts and other fun things to do with friends. They are the social butterflies who make new friends wherever they go. 

Other people are introverted. Introverts can be just as faithful and loyal of friends as extroverts, but they may not take the initiative to call you or arrange plans. However, when you call or text them, they are highly likely to reply, and when you invite them to spend time with you, they often will say yes, being thankful to be remembered and included. 

Of course, there is a whole world of grey area in between  the extrovert and introverted friends, but the point is that people express their friendship in different ways. 

If I am the friend who always takes the initiative, and you are never the first to call or text me, or invite me over to dinner, I honestly will take no notice. If, when I reach out to you, you are happy to hear from me; if, when I invite you to spend time with me, you happily accept my invitation, then I will feel secure in our friendship. 

(Now I will say this: if you not only never reach out to me as a friend, but regularly ignore and reject my efforts at friendship, I may take that to mean you aren't interested in being friends. Even so, before drawing that conclusion, I will give you every opportunity and benefit of the doubt until I am positive you don't want me in your life. But once I realize that you aren't interested in friendship, I promise to leave you alone.)

Back to the purpose of this article, however, should friendship "go both ways"? My answer depends on your definition of what it means to go both ways. If you mean that friends should keep a tally of how many times each initiates conversation or hangouts, and if one person doesn't meet the quota, they are out ... then, no. I do not believe friendships go both ways. If an extrovert and an introvert are friends, the extrovert will likely do 100% of the initiating, but that doesn't mean the introvert doesn't cherish that relationship and enjoy talking to and spending time with that friend. They just show their love differently. 

If friendship going both ways means that there is at least some give-and-take, some effort from both parties to show the other that they care, even if in their own unique ways, then yes. This can look like your introverted friend texting you back something like, "It's so good to hear from you! I'm sorry I haven't texted you lately." This could mean that they show up to social gatherings or personal hangouts at least occasionally when you invite them, when their schedule allows. This could mean them answering the phone, at least sometimes, when you call them (or even responding to a missed call with a text), especially if they are uncomfortable with phone conversations in general. 

If you have made it this far reading this, I want to encourage you to think twice before criticizing a friend - or ending a friendship - because "I can't remember the last time you initiated the conversation; a hangout; whatever." Remember that we are all different and we all show our love different ways. If you feel that you are always the initiator in the friendship, but your friend usually responds positively to your initiations, then that is a sign you have a good and healthy friendship. Do not give with an expectation to receive. That is not friendship, and that is not love. Keep extending the invitation and let it be enough for them to simply accept. If you are on the other end, don't let anyone make you feel guilty for not calling/texting/inviting/hosting or otherwise reaching out as often as they do. It is not your job to make everyone in the world happy. Be yourself, and your true friends will love you as you are. 

Until next time,

Crystal

An open letter to middle and high schoolers on National Walk-Out Day

Dear students,

I would like to tell you a story.

Once upon a time, there was a girl who loved the underdog. The poor, the socially awkward, the less attractive, the athletically challenged, the nerds, the geeks, the outcasts…those were her people. 

They were the ones who accepted her no matter what. She didn’t have to be flawless, have a perfect home life, be talented or even “normal.” She didn’t have to keep up with the latest fads and make sure that every hair was in place. She could be herself with them, because they only had one rule: if you love and accept me, I’ll love and accept you. 

One day, one of the popular girls approached her. 

“You could be popular, too,” she said. “I can teach you how to talk, walk and dress like one of us. Hang out with me and I’ll help you fit in.”

Fitting in and being popular started sounding pretty good. Sure, she had to dress differently, talk differently, and pretty much completely change who she was. It felt awkward, like putting on a costume and trying out for the lead in the school play, though deep inside she knew she wasn’t an actress. But with time, she would get used to it, she told herself. Eventually, it would all begin to feel normal. She would feel normal. 

“There is one more thing you have to do to really belong with us,” the popular girl said one day. “You have to get rid of your friends. Not only that, you have to do it in front of the entire school, to really prove you are one of us. Ignore them. Make fun of them. Humiliate them. Whatever you have to do to prove that you are now one of us and not one of them, anymore.”

The girl felt sick. She loved her friends. They had been with her through everything good and bad in her life. She didn’t want to hurt them, but she had put so much effort into becoming popular, could she really turn back now?

The next day she was walking with her new friends when her “old” friends approached her. The popular girl looked at her and raised her eyebrows.

“Let’s see what you’re really made of,” her expression seemed to say. 

The girl swallowed hard, and truly believed she had swallowed her own heart. Burying down everything in her that was screaming “THIS IS WRONG!” she turned to her old group of misfits…and began to make fun of them. 

Down the rabbit hole

Dear reader,

So this has been a long time coming. Thanks to some advice from a sweet friend, I finally decided to take the plunge and start a blog. Matt has been on my back about blogging for a while now, but I never knew quite what to write about.

At the same time, my collection of incomplete creative writing has been growing, and well, dying, as it sits unread and unfinished in my laptop and assorted notebooks. I believe my frequent writer’s block has been largely due to a fear of completion, or more so, a fear of completed works never being published or read.

While sitting at the playground today, letting the kiddos run wild and enjoying some much needed time with my homeschool mom-friends, we started talking about our artistic passions and, more importantly, what has been keeping us from those passions.

After voicing my feelings and fears about completing and publishing my writing, one friend said, “Start a blog and publish your stories in episodes!”

Genius! Why haven’t I ever thought of that? I fully believe that God puts certain people in our lives for a reason, and Tascha, I am so thankful He put you in mine.

So here I am, taking a leap of faith thanks to a little nudge at just the right time. Between parenting/homeschooling and my job as a journalist, I’m not sure yet how often I will be able to post, but I hope you will join me on this journey and maybe get some entertainment (and occasionally encouragement) from the goings-on inside my head.

Until next time,

Crystal