Pentecost in the Backwoods

Shocking, exuberant, exalted, the camp meeting answered the pioneers demand for religion and helped shape the character of the West


The Great Revival in the West, or the Kentucky Revival of 1800, as it was sometimes called, was a landmark in American history. It was not some accidental outburst of religious hysteria that crackled through the clearings. Rather, it was one of many answers to a question on which America’s destiny hung during Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency. Which way would the West go? It was filling up last in 1800, and yet it still remained isolated behind the mountain barriers, only thinly linked to the nation by a cranky, awkward, and dangerous transportation “system” of trails and rivers. Could it be held within the bounds of American institutions as they had developed over 175 colonial years? Would its raw energies pull it into some new orbit—say, an independent confederation? Or, if it stayed in the Union, would it send representatives swarming back eastward to crush old patterns under the weight of numbers?

No group asked this question more anxiously than eastern clergymen. For, in 1800, they saw that their particular pattern was being abandoned on the frontier. From Kentucky, Tennessee, the western Carolinas, and Virginia, reports came back of a world that was shaggy, vicious, and churchless. The hard living men and women of the forest clearings were not raising temples to God. Their morals (to eastern eyes) were parlous. Corn liquor flowed freely; marriages were celebrated long after children had arrived; gun and rope settled far too many legal disputes. The West was crowded with Sabbath-breakers and profane swearers, thieves, murderers, and blasphemers, with neither courts of law nor public opinion to raise a rebuke. The whole region seemed “hair-hung and breeze-shaken” over Hell’s vault. And this was a matter of life-or-death seriousness to the churches. It was clear even then that America’s future lay beyond the mountains. And if the West grew up Godless, then the entire nation would one day turn from His ways, to its destruction. It was no wonder that pious folk of the seaboard dug into their pocketbooks to scrape up funds for “home missionary” societies aimed at paying the way of parsons traveling westward. Or that church assemblies warned of crises ahead and called for special days of fasting, humiliation, and prayer for the West.

Yet, for a fact, the easterners were wrong. They misjudged their pioneers. Western people wanted and needed the church just as badly as the church needed their support for survival. Religion had a part to play in the hard-driven lives of the frontier settlers. It was more than a mere foundation for morality. It offered the hope of a bright future, shining beyond the dirt-floored, hog-and-hominy present. It offered an emotional outlet for lives ringed with inhibition, it was a social thing, too, furnishing occasions on which to lay aside axe and gun and skillet and gather with neighbors, to sing, to weep, to pray, or simply to talk with others. The West had to have religion—but religion of its own special kind. The West was not “lost” in 1800, but on the verge of being saved. Only it was going to be saved the same way it did everything else: on its own individualistic terms.

The East found this hard to understand. The East had trouble taking stock of such a man as the father of the western revival, James McGready. McGready was an angular, black-eyed Scotch-Irishman, born on the Pennsylvania frontier. He came of a hard-working and pious stock that had filled the western stretches of the Colonies in the sixty years before the Revolution. McGready was true to the spirit of his Highland Calvinistic ancestors, who worked, prayed, and fought heartily. He grew to adolescence without becoming a swearer, drinker, or Sabbath-breaker, which made him something of a God-fearing rarity among frontier youth. So his family sent him to a private school conducted by a minister, where he wrestled with Scripture in the morning and did farm chores in the afternoon for his “tuition.” In 1788, he was licensed to preach, and came down to western North Carolina’s Guillord County, where his family had moved. Thus, McGready was a product of western Presbytenanism.

That was important. In the 1790’s, the religious picture in the United States already showed considerable (and characteristic) variety. Episcopalianism was solidly rooted among the landed gentry of the South. The Dutch Reformed Church carried on the heritage established when the flag of Holland Happed over New York. Various shoots of Lutheranism pushed up out of the soil of German settlements. Baptism and Methodism were small but growing faiths. There were little wedges in the pie of church membership labeled “Quaker,” “Catholic,” and “Jewish.” A few bold souls called themselves Deists. A few more were on the way to becoming Unitarians. American worship wore a coat of many colors. But in New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, the Presbyterian and Congregational bodies were unquestionably in the forefront. Both were rooted in the preceding century’s Puritanism. Both officially believed in “predestination” and “limited election”—God had chosen a few individuals to be saved from general damnation, and the list, made up from the beginning of eternity, was unchangeable. These chosen “saints” were born in sin, but in His own way God would convert them to holiness during their lifetimes. Meanwhile, the laws of God must be interpreted and explained to mankind. In order to do this, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists had raised up colleges to train their ministers, the most famous among them by 1800 being Harvard, Yule, and Princeton. Graduates of these schools thundered of Jehovah’s wrath to their congregations in two-hour sermons rich with samples of their learning. During the week they warmed their study chairs ten hours a day, writing black-bound volumes of theology.

Religion of this sort lacked appeal for the Scotch-Irish migrants pushing into the frontier regions. They were Presbyterians in name. But their wild surroundings did something to them. They came to resent authority—whether exercised by excise collectors, land speculators, lawyers, or, finally, ministers. What was more, they wanted a little stronger assurance of salvation than a strict reading of limited election gave them. There was a need, in this fur-capped, bewhiskered Christian world, for more promise in life, and more passion too. Learned pulpit lectures might do for townspeople, but not for pioneers.

Among common folk, both East and West, a ferment of resentment against the “aristocratic” notion of election was at work. In the 1740’s it had exploded in a revival called the Great Awakening. Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Anglican, and Dutch-Reformed Christians were caught up in a common whirlwind of handclapping, shouting, and hosanna-ing. A good many new leaders, and a number of unpleasant schisms, had risen out of this storm. And in western Pennsylvania, revival-minded Presbyterians had founded a number of little academies to train their preachers. Derisively dubbed “log colleges” by the learned, they took the name proudly. Their graduates were short on Greek and exegesis but long on zeal. When the Great Awakening sputtered out before the Revolution, these colleges remained, helping to keep the sparks alive. Now, with the new nation established, the fire was ready to blaze again. McGready, himself a log-college graduate, was one of the first to blow on it.

McGready got to grips with the powers of darkness in North Carolina without wasting any time. He began to preach against the “formality and deadness” of the local churches. Besides that, he demanded some concrete testimony of good living from his flock, and the particular evidence he asked for was highly exacting. The new preacher insisted that strong drink was a slippery path to Hell. In Guilford County this did not sit well. Frontiersmen saw no harm in lightening a hard life with a dram or two, and they wanted no lectures on the subject from men of the cloth. In point of fact, there was no cloth. Pioneer ministers wore buckskin, and took their turn with the next man at hoeing corn or splitting kindling. McGready got nowhere—at least nowhere in North Carolina. After a futile battle, he felt to seek a more promising future in Kentucky—some said by request of the congregation.

In Kentucky, circumstances were riper for him. Despite eastern concern, a new Christian community was taking shape in that rugged, bear-and-savage haunted wilderness province, where crude living went along with high dreaming. It was a community ready to be stirred into life, and McGready was the man to seize the stick. In Logan County, in the southwestern part of the state—a region well-known for unregenerate doings—he had three small congregations: at Red River, Gasper River, and Muddy River. He began to preach to these congregations, and he did not deal with such recondite matters as the doctrines contained in Matthew, or their applications. Instead he would “so describe Heaven” that his listeners would “see its glories and long to be there.” Then he went on to “array hell and its horrors” so that the wicked would “tremble and quake, imagining a lake of fire and brimstone yawning to overwhelm them.” With that brimstone smoking away in the background, McGready struck for bedrock. The whole point of Christianity, for him, was in the conversion of sinners to saints assured of eternal bliss. His question of questions was dagger-sharp: “If I were converted, would I feel it and know it?” A McGready parishioner was not going to be allowed to rest in self-satisfaction merely because he attended worship and avoided the grosser forms of indecency.

Under such spurring, results began to show among the faithful. In 1799, during a service at Gasper River, many fell to the ground and lay “powerless, groaning, praying and crying for mercy.” Women began to scream. Big, tough men sobbed like hysterical children. What could explain this? Simply the fact that belly-deep fear was taking over. For it is well to remember that in those days conversion was the only token of salvation. No matter how young one was, no matter how blameless a life he had led, until the moment of transformation one was a sinner, bound for torment. If death stepped in before conversion was completed, babes and grandsires alike sank screaming into a lake of burning pitch—a lake that was not metaphorical, not symbolical, but real and eternal. And death on the frontier was always around the corner—in the unexpected arrow, the milk sickness, the carelessly felled tree, the leap of the wounded grizzly. Frontiersmen bottled up their fear of these things usually. It was the price of sanity and survival. But when a religious service provided an acceptable excuse for breaking down the barriers, it was no wonder that men shivered and wept.

After shaking up the dry bones of the Gasper River settlement, McGready moved on in June of 1800 to Red River. He meant to hold a sacramental service, at the end of which church members would take the Lord’s Supper together. What he got was something more uncontrolled. In a meetinghouse of undressed logs McGready shared his pulpit with three other Presbyterian ministers. A Methodist preacher was also present. That was not unusual. Frontier preachers were a small band. They knew each other well. A service was a social occasion, and therefore a treat and several ministers often took part in order to draw it out.

The Presbyterian shepherds did their preaching, and what they said has not come down to us, but they must have dragged a harrow through the congregation’s feelings. When John McGee, the Methodist, arose, an awesome hush had fallen on the house. McGee faced a problem. The Methodists were relative newcomers to America, officially on the scene only a few years compared to the others. They were frowned on by more established groups, mainly because they gave emotion free rein in their worship. It was not unusual at a Methodist meeting for women to faint, men to shout in strange tongues, and the minister himself to windmill his arms and bawl himself red-faced. For the more formal Presbyterians, such conduct was out of bounds. McGee knew this, and wanted to mind his ecclesiastical manners. But he knew a ripe audience when he saw one, too, and after an apparent debate with himself, he made his move. Rising, he shouted that everyone in the house should submit to “the Lord Omnipotent.” Then he began to bounce from backless bench to backless bench, pleading, crying, shouting, shaking, and exhorting, “with all possible energy and ecstasy.”

That broke the dam. The sinners of Red River had spent a lonely winter with pent-up terrors gnawing at them. McGee’s appeal was irresistible. In a moment the floor was “covered with the slain; their screams for mercy pierced the heavens.” Cursers, duelers, whiskey-swillers, and card players lay next to little children of ten and eleven, rolling and crying in “agonies of distress” for salvation. It was a remarkable performance for a region “destitute of religion.” When it was through, a new harvest of souls had been gathered for the Lord.

Word of the Red River meeting whisked through the territory. When McGready got to Muddy River, his next congregation, new scenes of excitement were again enacted. During the meeting, sinners prayed and cried for mercy once again, and some of them, overwhelmed by feeling, bolted from the house and rushed in agony into the woods. Their cries and sobs could be heard ringing through the surrounding trees. And when this meeting had yielded up its quota of saved, the Kentucky Revival was not only a fact, but a well known one. McGready announced another sacramental meeting for Gasper River, and before long, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Kentuckians who did not belong to his district were threading the trails on their way to the service. Some came as far as a hundred miles, a hard week’s trip in the back country. In wagons, on horseback, and on foot came the leather-shirted men, rifles balanced on their shoulders, and their pinched looking, tired women, all looking for blessed assurance and a washing away of their sins.

At Gasper River, history was made. The cabins of the neighborhood could not hold the influx of visitors, so the newcomers came prepared to camp out. They brought tents—some of them—and cold pork, roasted hens, slabs of corn bread, and perhaps a little whiskey to hold them up through the rigors of a long vigil. The Gasper River meetinghouse was too small for the crowd, so the men got out their educated axes, and in a while the clop-clop of tree-felling formed an overture to the services. Split-log benches were dragged into place outdoors, and the worshipers adjourned to God’s first temple. What was taking place was an outdoor religious exercise, meant to last two or three days, among people who camped on the spot. This was the camp meeting. Some claimed that Gasper River sheltered the very first of them. That claim has been challenged in the court of historical inquiry. But whether it stands up or not, the Gasper River meeting was something new in worship. It took its form from its western surroundings. Outsiders were a long time in understanding it, because they saw its crude outside and not its passionate heart.

The outside was raw enough. Once again McGready exhorted, and once again sinners fell prostrate to the ground. Night came on; inside the meetinghouse, candlelight threw grotesque, waving shadows on the walls. Outside, the darkness deepened the sense of mystery and of eternity’s nearness. Preachers grew hoarse and exhausted, but insatiable worshipers gathered in knots to pray together, and to relieve their feelings by telling each other of “the sweet wonders which they saw in Christ.” Hour followed hour, into dawn. For people who had to rise (and generally retire) with the sun each day of their lives, this alone was enough to make the meeting memorable for the rest of their lives. Lightheaded and hollow-eyed, the “mourners,” or unconverted, listened alternately to threats of sulphur and promises of bliss, from Saturday until Monday. On Tuesday, after three throbbing days, they broke it up. Forty-five had professed salvation. Satan had gotten a thorough gouging.

Now the tide of camp-meeting revivalism began to roll northward. One of the visitors at the Logan County meetings was a young Presbyterian clergyman whose life was something of a copy of McGready’s. Barton Warren Stone too had learned on the frontier to revere God Almighty and to farm well. He too had studied religion in a log college. But more than this, he was one of McGready’s own converts, having fallen under the power of the older man’s oratory in North Carolina. Stone liked what he observed in Logan County, and he took McGready’s preaching methods and the camp-meeting idea back to his own congregations in Bourbon County, well to the north and east. Soon he too had imitators, among them Richard McNemar, who had small Presbyterian charges across the river in Ohio.

But it was Stone himself who touched off the monster camp meeting of the region’s history. He set a sacramental service for August 6, 1801, at Cane Ridge, not far from the city of Lexington. Some indefinable current of excitement running from cabin to cabin brought out every Kentuckian who could drop his earthly concerns and move, by horseflesh or shoe leather, towards the campground. Later on, some people estimated that 25,000 were on hand, but that figure is almost too fantastic for belief. In 1800, Kentucky had only a quarter of a million residents, and Lexington, the largest town, numbered under two thousand. But even a crowd of three or four thousand would have overwhelmed anything in the previous experience of the settlers.

Whatever the actual number, there was a sight to dazzle the eyes of the ministers who had come. Technically the meeting was Presbyterian, but Baptist and Methodist parsons had come along, and there was room for them, because no one man could hope to reach such a mob. Preaching stands built of logs were set up outdoors. One man remembered a typical scene —a crowd spilling out of the doors of the one meetinghouse, where two Presbyterian ministers were alternately holding forth, and three other groups scattered within a radius of a hundred yards. One cluster of sinners was gathered at the feet of a Presbyterian preacher, another gave ear to a Methodist exhorter, and lastly, a knot of Negroes was attending on the words of some orator of their own race. All over the campground, individual speakers had gathered little audiences to hear of their experiences. One observer said that there were as many as three hundred of these laymen “testifying.”

So Cane Ridge was not really a meeting, but a series of meetings that gathered and broke up without any recognizable order. One Methodist brother who could not find a free preaching-stand ventured up the slanting trunk of a partly fallen tree. He found a flat spot, fifteen feet off the ground, and he spoke from this vantage point while a friend on the ground held up an umbrella on a long pole to shelter him from the weather. Within a few moments, this clergyman claimed, he had gathered an audience of thousands. Undoubtedly they stayed until lured away by some fresh address from a stump or the tail of a wagon. For the crowds were without form as they collected, listened, shouted “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!” and drifted off to find neighbors or refreshments or more preaching. The din can only be guessed at. The guilty were groaning and sometimes screaming at the top of their lungs, and those who felt that they were saved were clapping their hands, shouting hymns, and generally noising out their exultation. There were always hecklers at the meetings too, and some of them were no doubt shouting irreverent remarks at the faithful. Crying children added their bit, and tethered horses and oxen stamped, bawled, and whinnied to make the dissonance complete. Someone said that the meeting sounded from afar like the roar of Niagara. At night the campfires threw weird shadow-patterns of trees across the scene, and the whole moving, resounding gathering appeared to be tossing on the waves of some invisible storm. As if to etch the experience into men’s memories, there were real rainstorms, and the drenched participants were thrown into fresh waves of screaming as thunder and lightning crashed around them.

All in all, a memorable enough episode. And yet still stranger things happened to put the brand of the Lord’s sponsorship on Cane Ridge’s mass excitement. Overwhelmed with their sensations, some men and women lay rigid and stiff on the ground for hours in a kind of catalepsy. One “blasphemer” who had come to scoff at the proceedings tumbled from his saddle unconscious and remained so for a day and a half. There was something incredibly compelling in what was going on. One remembered testimony came from a reasonably hardheaded young man named James Finley. Later in life Finley became a Methodist preacher, but in 1801 he was, except for a better-than-average education, a typical frontiersman. He had a small farm, a new wife, and a vigorous love of hunting. He had come to the Cane Ridge meeting out of curiosity, but as he looked on, he was taken with an uncontrollable trembling and feelings of suffocation. He left the campground, found a log tavern, and put away a glass of brandy to steady his nerves. But they were beyond steadying. All the way home he kept breaking out in irrational fits of laughter or tears. Many a spirit, returning from Cane Ridge, must have been moved in the same near-hysterical way.

A holy frenzy seemed to have taken hold of the West. Throughout the frontier communities, the ecstasy of conversion overflowed into the nervous system. At Cane Ridge, and at a hundred subsequent meetings, the worshipers behaved in ways that would be unbelievable if there were not plenty of good testimony to their truth. Some got the “jerks,” a spasmodic twitching of the entire body. They were a fearful thing to behold. Some victims hopped from place to place like bouncing balls. Sometimes heads snapped from side to side so rapidly that faces became a blur, and handkerchiefs whipped off women’s heads. One preacher saw women taken with the jerks at table, so that teacups went flying from their hands to splash against log walls. Churchmen disagreed about the meaning of these symptoms. Were they signs of conversion? Or demonstrations of the Lord’s power, meant to convince doubters? Peter Cartwright, a famous evangelist of a slightly later era, believed the latter. He told of a skeptic at one of his meetings who was taken with the jerks and in a particularly vicious spasm snapped his neck. He died, a witness to the judgment of Omnipotence but gasping out to the last his “cursing and bitterness.” Besides the jerks, there were strange seizures in which those at prayer broke into uncontrollable guffaws or intoned weird and wordless melodies.

It was wild and shaggy, and very much a part of life in the clearings. Westerners wanted to feel religion in their bones. In their tough and violent lives intellectual exercises had no place, but howls and leaps were something that men who were “half-horse and half-alligator” understood. It was natural for the frontier to get religion with a mighty roar. Any other way would not have seemed homelike to people who, half in fun and half in sheer defensiveness, loved their brag, bluster, and bluff.

Yet there was something deeper than mere excitement underneath it all. Something fundamental was taking place, some kind of genuine religious revolution, bearing a made-in-America stamp. The East was unhappy with it. For one thing, camp meeting wildness grated on the nerves of the educated clergy. All of this jigging and howling looked more like the work of Satan than of God. There were ugly rumors, too, about unsanctified activities at the meetings. Some candidates for salvation showed up with cigars between their teeth. Despite official condemnation, liquor flowed free and white-hot on the outskirts of the gatherings. It might be that corn did more than its share in justifying God’s ways to man. Then there were stories that would not down which told how, in the shadows around the clearing, excited men and women were carried away in the hysteria and, as the catch phrase had it, “begot more souls than were saved” at the meeting. All these tales might have had some partial truth, yet in themselves they did not prove much about frontier religion. As it happened, a part of every camp-meeting audience apparently consisted of loafers and rowdies who came for the show and who were quite capable of any sin that a Presbyterian college graduate was likely to imagine.

Yet it was not the un-scrubbed vigor of the meetings that really bothered conservatives in the Presbyterian Church. Their fundamental problem was in adjusting themselves and their faith to a new kind of democratic urge. Enemies of the revivals did not like the success of emotional preaching. What would happen to learning, and all that learning stood for, if a leather-lunged countryman with a gift for lurid word pictures could be a champion Salvationist? And what would happen—what had happened—to the doctrine of election when the revival preacher shouted “Repent!” at overwrought thousands, seeming to say that any Tom, Dick, or Harry who felt moved by the Spirit might be receiving the promise of eternal bliss? Would mob enthusiasm replace God’s careful winnowing of the flock to choose His lambs? The whole orderly scheme of life on earth, symbolized by a powerful church, an educated ministry, and a strait and narrow gate of salvation, stood in peril.

Nor were the conservatives wrong. In truth, when the McGreadys and Stones struck at “deadness” and “mechanical worship” in the older churches, they were going beyond theology. They were hitting out at a view of things that gave a plain and unlettered man little chance for a say in spiritual affairs. A church run by skilled theologians was apt to set rules that puzzled simple minds. A church which held that many were called, but few chosen, was aristocratic in a sense. The congregations of the western evangelists did not care for rules, particularly rules that were not immediately plain to anyone. In their view, the Bible alone was straightforward enough. Neither would they stand for anything resembling aristocracy, whatever form it might take. They wanted cheap land and the vote, and they were getting these things. They wanted salvation as well—or at least free and easy access to it—and they were bound to have that too. If longer-established congregations and their leaders back east did not like that notion, the time for a parting of the ways was at hand. In politics, such a parting is known as a revolution; in religion, it is schism. Neither word frightened the western revivalists very much.

The trouble did not take long to develop. In McGready’s territory, a new Cumberland Presbytery, or subgroup, was organized in 1801. Before long it was in a battle with the Kentucky Synod, the next highest administrative body in the hierarchy. The specific issue was the licensing of certain “uneducated” candidates for the ministry. The root question was revivalism. The battle finally went up to the General Assembly, for Presbyterians a sort of combined Congress and Supreme Court. In 1809 the offending revivalistic presbytery was dissolved. Promptly, most of its congregations banded themselves into the separate Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Meanwhile, Barton Stone, Richard McNemar, and other members of the northern Kentucky wing of camp-meeting Presbyterianism were also in trouble. They founded a splinter group known as the “New Lights,” and the Kentucky Synod, as might have been foreseen, lost little time in putting the New Lights out, via heresy proceedings. Next, they formed an independent Springfield Presbytery. But like all radicals, they found it easier to keep going than to apply the brakes. In 1804 the Springfield Presbytery fell apart. Stone and some of his friends joined with others in a new body, shorn of titles and formality, which carried the magnificently simple name of the Christian Church. Later on, Stone went over to the followers of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who called themselves Disciples of Christ. Richard McNemar, after various spiritual adventures, became a Shaker. Thus, ten years after Cane Ridge, the score was depressing for Presbyterians. Revivalism had brought on innumerable arguments, split off whole presbyteries, and sent ministers and congregations flying into the arms of at least four other church groups. That splintering was a stronger indictment than any conservative could have invented to bring against Cane Ridge, or against its western child, the camp meeting.

A dead end appeared to have been reached. But it was only a second-act curtain. In the first act, religion in the West, given up for lost, had been saved by revivalism. In the second, grown strong and rambunctious, it had quarreled with its eastern parents. Now the time was at hand for a third-act resolution of the drama. Both sides would have to back down and compromise. For the lesson of history was already plain. In religious matters, as in all matters, East and West, metropolis and frontier, were not really warring opposites. Each nourished the other, and each had an impact on the other. Whatever emerged as “American” would carry some of the imprint of both, or it would perish.

On the part of the West, the retreat consisted of taming the camp meeting. Oddly enough, it was not the Presbyterians who did that. By 1812 or so, they had drawn back from it, afraid of its explosive qualities. But the Methodists were in an excellent position to make use of revivalism and all its trappings. They had, at that time at least, no educated conservative wing. They welcomed zealous backwoods preachers, even if they were grammatically deficient. In fact, they worked such men into their organization and sent them, under the name of “circuit-riders,” traveling tirelessly on horseback to every lonely settlement that the wilderness spawned. The result was that the Methodists were soon far in the lead in evangelizing the frontier. They did not have to worry about the claims of limited election either. Their formal theology did not recognize it. With a plain-spoken and far-reaching ministry freely offering salvation to all true believers, Methodism needed only some kind of official harvest season to count and bind together the converts. The camp meeting was the perfect answer. By 1811, the Methodists had held four or five hundred of them throughout the country; by 1820, they had held a thousand—by far the majority of all such gatherings in the nation.

But these meetings were not replicas of Cane Ridge. They were combed, washed, and made respectable. Permanent sites were picked, regular dates chosen, and preachers and flocks given ample time to prepare. When meeting time came, the arriving worshipers in their wagons were efficiently taken in charge, told where to park their vehicles and pasture their teams, and given a spot for their tents. Orderly rows of these tents surrounded a preaching area equipped with sturdy benches and preaching stands. The effect was something like that of a formal bivouac just before a general’s inspection. Tight scheduling kept the worship moving according to plan—dawn prayers, eight o’clock sermons, eleven o’clock sermons, dinner breaks, afternoon prayers and sermons, meals again, and candlelight services. Years of experience tightened the schedules, and camp-meeting manuals embodied the fruits of practice. Regular hymns replaced the discordant bawling of the primitive era. Things took on a generally homelike look. There were Methodist ladies who did not hesitate to bring their best feather beds to spread in the tents, and meals tended to be planned and ample affairs. Hams, turkeys, gravies, biscuits, preserves, and melons produced contented worshipers and happy memories.

There were new rules to cope with disorderliness as well. Candles, lamps, and torches fixed to trees kept the area well lit and discouraged young converts from amorous ways. Guards patrolled the circumference of the camp, and heroic if sometimes losing battles were fought to keep whiskey out. In such almost decorous surroundings jerks, barks, dances and trances became infrequent and finally nonexistent.

Not that there was a total lack of enthusiasm. Hymns were still yelled and stamped as much as sung. Nor was it out of bounds for the audience to pepper the sermon with ejaculations of “Amen!” and “Glory!” Outsiders were still shocked by some things they saw. But they did not realize how far improvement had gone.

Eastern churchmen had to back down somewhat, too. Gradually, tentatively, they picked up the revival and made it part of their religious life. In small eastern towns it became regularized into an annual season of “ingathering,” like the harvest or the election. Yet it could not be contained within neat, white-painted meeting-houses. Under the “civilized” clothing, the tattered form of Twain’s Pap Finn persisted. Certain things were taken for granted after a time. The doctrine of election was bypassed and, in practice, allowed to wither away.

Moreover, a new kind of religious leader, the popular evangelist, took the stage. Men like Charles G. Finney in the 1830’s, Dwight L. Moody in the 1870’5, and Billy Sunday in the decade just preceding the First World War flashed into national prominence. Their meetings overflowed church buildings and spilled into convention halls, auditoriums, and specially built “tabernacles.” As it happened, these men came from lay ranks into preaching. Finney was a lawyer, Moody a shoe salesman, and Sunday a baseball player. They spoke down-to-earth language to their massed listeners, reduced the Bible to basic axioms, and drew their parables from the courtroom, the market, and the barnyard. They made salvation the only goal of their service, and at the meeting’s end they beckoned the penitents forward to acknowledge the receipt of grace. In short, they carried on the camp-meeting tradition. By the closing years of the nineteenth century, however, the old campgrounds for the most part were slowly abandoned. Growing cities swallowed them up, and rapid transportation destroyed the original reason for the prolonged camp-out. But the meetings were not dead. Mass revivalism had moved them indoors and made them a permanent part of American Protestantism.

All of this cost something in religious depth, religious learning and religious dignity. Yet there was not much choice. The American churches lacked the support of an all-powerful state or of age-old traditions. They had to move with the times. That is why their history is so checkered with schismatic movements, symptoms of the struggle to get in step with the parade. Hence, if the West in 1800 could not ignore religion, the rest of the country, in succeeding years, could not ignore the western notion of religion. One student of the camp meeting has said that it flourished “side by side with the militia muster, with the cabin raising and the political barbecue.” That was true, and those institutions were already worked deeply into the American grain by 1840. They reflected a spirit of democracy, optimism, and impatience that would sweep us across a continent, sweep us into industrialism or sweep us into a civil war. That spirit demanded some religious expression, some promise of a millennium in which all could share.

The camp meeting was part of that religious expression, part of the whole revival system that channeled American impulses into churchgoing ways. In the home of the brave, piety was organized so that Satan got no breathing spells. Neither, for that matter, did anyone else.

Bernard A. Weisberger, associate professor of history at Wayne State University, has contributed to previous issues of AMERICAN HERITAGE. This article is adapted from his recent book, They Gathered at the River, published by Little, Brown and Company.



39 thoughts on “Pentecost in the Backwoods

  1. I had an ancestor who knew James Magready in North Carolina. (It is pronounced Magrady, but spelled as you see it above.) My understanding is that my ancestor, James Johnston, took the Carolina Covenant, along with several of his family. He also named a son for James Magready (James Magrady Johnston). James Johnston moved to Tennessee, settling near the boundary of Logan County, Kentucky, where James Magready had his three little churches. One of those church buildings, Red River Meetinghouse, stood until the 1950’s, when it burned. A replica of it was built a few years later and stands there today, tho no church services are held there anymore. The church’s membership when Magready was the pastor was only 35. Several hundred people, perhaps as many as three hundred or more, are buried in the cemetery beside the church building. People came from far and wide to be buried there. If you ever visit the site, you will understand why. The presence of God is there is a very impressive way. I have never seen anyone visit the site who was not visibily moved by what they felt.

    It was told to me that as the revival began to wane, a number of people living in the area, up and down Red River, began to pray for a renewal of the revival. In time, many of them came to say that they had “an assurance from God” that there would be another great revival similar to the Red River Revival (also known as the Kentucky Revival, and The Great Revival). These people said God told them that this coming revival was yet far into the future, that it would come at the end of the age. As a child in the 1950’s, I was told this great revival was to come sometime in the early 21st century. This revival is to be much like the Great Revival, except it will be much bigger. It will come in two waves. There is a false church, that church that is part of the world system. This false church, which deludes so many Christians, will attempt to ensnare those who come to God in the first wave of the coming revival, and in time they will succeed in ensnaring most. However, when the second wave of the revival comes, it was prophesied that it would sweep all before it. I was told that when the false church fails to defeat the second wave of the revival, intense persecution will follow. No one will be persecuted for saying they are a Christian or a follower of Christ, for remember, those who are a part of the false church also claim to be following Jesus. The persecution will be of those who refuse to become a part of the current world system, who refuse to accept the teachings of the false church.

  2. Thanks Dr. Brooks for that insight. I have found that I cause myself no trouble until I cause the world system trouble.
    Then I get it from the world and portions of “the church”. Amazing, isn’t it, how we can think that we are so far removed from that system and yet we are all neck-deep in it.

  3. For years I have been told that the days of revival and revivalism are over! I’ve been told I am wasting my time, I need to get with new forms of outreach…people will not come to churches who hold revival meetings and seek the face of God…someone forgot to tell some of the churches I go to this…as I am seeing the rumblings of a new Great Awakening…it’s not come to fruition just yet, but if we continue to seek HIS Face (what a novel idea) and turn from our wicked (religious and self serving and self promoting) ways, He WILL still hear from heaven….

  4. David, you don’t mean that God has not changed, do you? (gasp!)

    It will come the way that it always has:
    With the poor and simple.
    With those who are not playing the religious game.
    With those with no agenda but him.
    With those broken enough to know that they need him.
    With those who want HIM more than a revival.

  5. I realize that in my first post I referred to the Carolina Covenant, but I did not say what it was. It was a covenant that people praying for revival made with God. The covenant was that they would pray for revival until revival came or they died. It was taken by people in North Carolina who were under Magready’s teaching, which is why it was called the “Carolina Covenant.” The idea came from Scotland, where Christians had begun making public covenants with God two centuries before Magready. Another idea from Scotland that was practised on the frontier by the revivalists was called the Sacramental Meeting, where people from many churches would take communion together after or during revival meetings. No one was allowed to take communion unless they had a card from their church or from several respected ministers who knew them, attesting to the fact that they were walking with God. Another service was the Love Feast, or Class Meeting. This began with the Wesley’s but was used during the Great Revival and for a long time afterwards. In these services, people would meet and take turns telling of their love for God and sharing recent happenings where He had helped them. The story is told of one young man who was unsaved, and who heard people talking of going to a Class Meeting. Stringing along out of curiousity, he found himself in a one room cabin and unable to get out due to the crowd inside. As one after another rose to tell of their love for God and what He had recently done for them, the young man became so agitated that he climbed up the chimney and escaped across the roof. His wife heard him galloping wildly home, and thot there was an Indian attack. Were the Indians coming, she asked? Worse, her husband replied, “God was coming!” He spent the next three days alone in the woods, praying, before going to the man who had held the Class Meeting to ask how he could be saved.

  6. The revivalists and those who walked in that tradition believed that you could not be saved until God first revealed to you that you were lost. They would pray with the lost for conviction, and only after conviction came would they pray for salvation. They did not believe in praying a short prayer of repentance that then assuming that the person was saved. Once you were under conviction, you were called a penitent, and people would pray with you until you knew in your spirit that you were saved. This knowledge of salvation was sometimes called an “assurance from God.”

  7. In relation to my ancestor, James Johnston, who took the Carolina Covenant, and who was one of those who said God had assured him that there would be another great revival near the end of the age, there is a verse on his tombstone that reads, “Tho it tarry, wait for it, for it shall surely come.”

  8. This has been one of the issues that has bothered me concerning the present repentance movement. We all agree that the current “sinners prayer” is not found in the bible.

    However, we have failed to present a viable solution. This is especially true when we try to marry what we are doing with mass evangelism. Perhaps we are looking too hard at methods and patterning too much of what we do on “the way that things are done”. But we have specialized in making decisions and very few conversions.

    I can not in good conscience have people simply ‘lift their hand’ to accept the Lord. But I am left with a gaping hold in methodology that I have looked to the Kentucky revival and others for help with.

    Does anyone know how what Dr. Brooks described can be made to fit with modern evangelism techniques?

  9. I think we have been so caught up in numbers that the numbers don’t reflect true conversions! That’s why you can have denominations that report XXX in conversions and yet their church attendance is dropping if not plummeting!

    We need a new way “counting”…or should we just let God keep score?

    Or, until someone comes up with a better way, should we keep doing it like we are doing it? (sincere question)

  10. In the late 1890s, a study was done of the effectiveness of John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Dwight Moody, as far as what percentage of their converts remained true to the Lord after their “conversion.” Moody was the most spectacular preacher, and the one who employed the most dramatic altar calls and the simplest easiest method to “get saved.”

    Using Moody’s own “Decision Cards,” which had been stored and saved, the researchers found and inverviewed thousands of his converts. They found about 10% of them still following the Lord. Using what records they had, they estimated that 30 to 40% of John Wesley’s converts remained faithful to the Lord. Charles Finney saw to it that his meetings were saturated in prayer, with intercessors going to cities where his meetings would be held, and interceding in prayer for the meetings for weeks before they began. Over 90% of Finney’s converts remained true to God until they died!

    Bill Sunday was the most spectacular evangelist of them all, and the one who made salvation just a matter of going forward in one of his meetings. People flocked to answer his calls to commit your life to Christ, or, if you prefered, to commit to being a better person. A study was once done of Billy Sunday’s converts. It was found that less than 5% of them continued to attend church and give evidence of being saved, in the years after they went forward at one of his meetings.

    The only one of these four whose meetings were saturated in prayer, indeed who put not prayer but intercession at the top of his agenda, was Finney, over 90% of whose converts remained true to God.

    It is sad to have to point out the failures of some of God’s men, but Dwight Moody said a great deal when he told of an incident in one of his meetings.
    In that meeting, a drunk stood and proclaimed that Moody had saved him the year before. Moody said that he must have saved him, for if Jesus had saved the man, he wouldn’t be drunk!

  11. I went the opposite way, David. I pretty much stopped giving the option. Because I feared giving people a false sense of security more than not giving them the “sinner’s prayer”.

    In retrospect, I am still unsure of what to do or if this was right. I agree with Dr. Brooks that they used to preach until they ‘came under conviction’ and this was not today’s ‘getting convicted’ but it was a cloud that the person could not shake. Then the person would wrestle with God until they got an assurance of salvation.

    I just don’t know if this would work in our culture, I have tried something similar and can’t get people to stay at the altar for more than 15 minutes, even if they head there in tears.

    The issue that I have with altar calls is, ‘where does faith enter?’ There is an argument for simply believing in the Lord Jesus in faith, and if we believe, we are saved. Then there is an argument for real repentance as well. How does this work in mass evangelism? Using the current method, I have been tempted in the past to count every raised hand as a salvation, even the “re-dedications”.

    It is a slippery slope but we must come up with the answers and soon. I can’t believe that the answer that is currently in place is the right answer. At it’s own extreme are people like Tommie Zito who has people running around with cards all over their city- if you can get someone to repeat after you, they are saved. They use this “method” to claim thousands of salvations. And it is faulty and makes me ill to be honest.

    But in the absence of a method that agrees with scripture, what do we do?

  12. Maybe for the time being we need to stick with the “sinners prayer” until God gives us a better way that is more scriptural

    But not bloat the numbers…leave the counting to God, and the real evidence as changed lives!

  13. JC,
    This isn’t really what you are talking about but I just wanted to add this to show the Holy Spirit working in stealth mode. I grew up in a completely secular family but went to an evangelistic meeting when I was in high school because my friend urged me to go. It was really about end times. It scared me out of my skin.

    From that time on I could not find any rest for my soul. I had several dreams of hell. And no matter where I turned it seemed I was reminded of my lostness. I took alot of art classes and even some of the paintings in art history seemd to be sermons. One painting was of a young girl in a white dress who was dancing with a handsome man in a tuxedo. There were 3 scenes. By the 3rd scene her dress was blood red and he had turned into a skeleton to show this girl losing her innocence as she danced with worldliness. It took me 3 years from the time of that evangelistic meeting until I finally gave up fighting to became a believer.

  14. Actually, that’s exactly what we are talking about, Mary. I didn’t answer an altar call either, I was saved in a bathtub.

    Perhaps it is mass evangelism that needs changed. We may be better served creating meetings where we answer questions from people regarding their salvation, ala’ Finney.

    Or creating a united front where we tell them that until they have “assurance” they can not be saved. Heh, this would make everyone even more popular than many of us already are. (That’s the gift of sarcasm in action, right there…)

    Feel free to pipe in, Mary, and anyone else as well. I know that I could use the perspective.

  15. Actually I did answer an alter call at a Billy Graham conference, but it was for security reasons only I guess. I didn’t have a clue what I was doing.

    So personally, I like the idea of answering questions people might have regarding salvation. Many people(like I was) are totally Biblically illiterate. My real commitment -assurrance of salvation came with one on one Bible study.

    So I guess my point was even though I didn’t make a commitment at that first evangelistic meeting I mentioned, I never forgot the message. If you have the man power to do both large evangelistic meetings and smaller group things that really helps.

  16. I’ll just say one more thing and I’ll be quite. I never liked the sinners prayer. I would read it over and over again (from the Billy Graham crusade) and nothing. I did not want to change. There was no power in it. To me it seemed like an easy way out-too much fluff.

    Also, I don’t really like large mass evangelistic meetings-I think it’s to easy to feel lost in the crowd or hide in the crowd is more like it.

  17. I have seen all methods of conversion work, as I am sure all of y’all have too. (I am quite a bit older than the rest of you, so I have had more time to observe such things, tho.) 😉 I met a boy who was saved while tripping on LSD. He knew nothing of God or the bible, not having ever gone to church or known anyone who talked to him of such things. He realized he had overdosed and screamed aloud for help, tho there was no one for quite a distance. He said a bright light appeared with the form of a man in it. The man told him he would save him, but if he did, the young man must serve him. He asked the man in the light who he was, and he said “Jesus.” The boy agreed and the light disappeared. He was immediately no longer high and had had no desire to use drugs since. He said he went immediately and borrowed a bible and began reading it. Several people who heard that story told me that it was the devil who appeared to the boy, because Jesus did not save people that way. ???

    I have also preached a few times, after spending hours in prayer as preparation, and have seen people go crying to the altar. I also gave a five minute talk to a grade school class and had three students burst out sobbing. I don’t recall how I dealt with them. I usually ask people to give their lives to Jesus, tho I have also had people pray some version of the sinner’s prayer. I quit using it long ago, however, since it is not scriptural. I usually just ask people who are under conviction if they want to give their life to Jesus. I also remind them that they will belong to him and must learn to follow Him.

    I think the miraculous, ie. healing or something else, is important in reaching many, but rarely have I seen anyone saved without their first coming under conviction. I did know a lady once who told me that she had loved the Lord ever since she could remember, and she was in her 60’s. She said she had never gone forward to the altar to be prayed for, and had never prayed “The Sinner’s Prayer.” She asked me if I thought that kept her from being saved. My reply was, that since she was faithful to go to church and to pray for the salvation of others, and above all had a lover for God, that she should not worry about praying any prayer or about going forward to an altar to profess repentance. Some would say I was wrong, but I slept peacefully that night, and have continued to feel I told her the right thing.

  18. Yeah but we have to have a method! We would be totally lost without being totally certain that we were acting in a way that everyone gave their stamp of approval to!

    (That’s my “gift of sarcasm shining through again)

  19. “But in the absence of a method that agrees with scripture, what do we do?”

    Ro. 8:14– As many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

    Follow His direction. He knows how to clean fish.

    I said no sinners prayer. I just came to life.

    I was also instantaeously delivered from drugs WHILE high as a kite. I had a vision of Jesus’ return to earth that scared the hell out of me.


    Anyhow, no one taught me how to speak in tongues either. My little brother Phil ‘gently’ put his hand to my forehead and simply said, “The grace of God” and that was it. Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Awesome, holy, beyond words and WITH NO COACHING! That’s the bane of the Pentecostal movement over the last forty years. They do stuff like, “just go la la la la la” or other rediculous pressure tactics. Watching that Marjoe Gortner movie really set me free from ever relying on gimmicks and what not.

    It’s funny how silent the book of Acts is as to “how” it was done. It was so simple that we almost feel silly doing it that way, like God needs more help than simply saying, “repent, be baptised and receive the Holy Spirit” and then placing hands on them. *SIGH* What do you say when you lay hands on them???? *SIGH* The bible doesn’t say, so go back to Ro. 8:14 and “Follow Me”.

    Welp, there’s my two rusty pennies worth anyhow…
    mark jr.

  20. OKay so how does all of this fit in with MASS EVANGELISM? Or even smallish evangelism? We preach the Gospel and then what?

    We could just baptize. That’s what I used to do in tent meetings. It was fun, people were not ready for it but that made the event all the more interesting.

  21. more and more I am getting away from some type of formula prayer…this week a young man with conviction all over him came to the altar…I simply told him to cry out to God what was in his heart, God was listening, and God was the only one who could save him!

    I saw something else recently while we are on this subject:

    Romans 10:8-10 states this:
    Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    This is the only “method I have ever found in scripture! So could we propose from this that people need to confess Jesus is Lord? In addition to repenting of course.

    What say the rest of you?

  22. Public confession of your faith. Great point, David, and one that I had forgotten about. We require this at our “Love Feasts” at the church.
    We have everyone in the church take turns talking about who God is to them, how they love him before communion. Then they come forward for communion and we have them confirm that they are a Christian and that they believe the basic tenets of the faith. Then we give the communion. The power of God is awesome during the Love Feast.

    I understand that “repeat after me” is a sort of public confession. I am honestly considering taking it a step further after this discussion though. For quite awhile when I got to the altar call, I skipped the “head down, eyes closed” bit and told everyone to get their heads up and eyes open. Then said that if they wanted to be saved, come down front in front of everyone because if they were ashamed of Him before men, He would be ashamed of them before his Father.

    Working a real public confession into this would be great. Something that starts them off sharing their faith from the beginning.

  23. And after they make that confession?? Is that it? What do you do with them?

    Babies need baby food. Spoon feed them the word of God.
    Get away from the charismatic movement’s idea that experience is everything. The sword of the Spirit is the word.

    AND give them ephesians 6- show them who their foe is and how to fight him.

  24. I agree Mary. But we need to watch for the ditch on the left hand side of the road as well as the right. Experiencing God is a primary point of who I am as a Pentecostal. The letter without the Spirit will kill just as quickly as a spirit without the letter.
    Regarding warfare, I agree completely. This is something that has been woefully overlooked by the repentance crowd.

  25. ok,
    I agree. Maybe I should say get away from the idea that experience is the end all.
    James, you have to agree many are being duped out there because they don’t read the word.
    I understand what you are saying. I know that when I started memorizing scripture…asurrance of salvation scriptures – Satan had to flee. They (babies) will doubt their salvation on occassion. That’s his tactic.

  26. Everything that we experience needs to line up with scripture, yes. However, I do not believe that everything that we experience needs to have a parallel in scripture. If that were the case, Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, etc would all have had “false” experiences.

    We need to make sure that nothing the we experience is expressly forbidden in the whole counsel of scripture.

  27. James,
    I am not trying to be contentious. I am only trying to understand. I hope you know that.
    Where is gold dust forbidden? Drunk in the spirit is pretty clear to me to be a judgement of God.
    But the appearance of jemstones, gold, silver… they have no parallel ok.
    But they are not expressly forbidden.

  28. What does gold dust matter? I personally think that it is silly and chasing after these sorts of “signs” is also silly. But you are right, it is not forbidden. So why do we care? If it is not of God, it will pass. But is it damning people to hell?

    I think many of the “manifestations” of the prophetic community are excessive. I especially dislike how they relegate the word to the back burner and place experience before it. And that is where the error comes in because it opens them up to real error that will damn them.

    At some point we must differentiate between personal preference and error and that is where so many of us go astray. I have had oil appear on my hands, seeping up through the skin. I would wipe it and it would come right back. This was seen by 2500 people.

    Is there a precedent? No but did it harm or did it help? It helped both my faith and those who saw it.

    This is just balance and is what we need badly in the spirit filled community.
    And no one said you were a Pharisee, silly.

  29. gold dust, gemstones are seen an aweful lot in the occult.
    Yes, I think it is silly.

    I do see alot of people chasing after the signs an wonders and are being deceived by the false things.

    I only wanted to hear your oppinion on it. That’s all. I have some folkes on my extended family side that would salivate at gold dust, gem stones etc. and yet some couldn’t expain the gospel if I asked them to.

  30. A good case in point was the Kentucky revival. Many things happened there that religion was uncomfortable with. But was it God? We must look at the fruit beyond the manifestations, I think.

    Toronto and its subsequent children had very little fruit. The Kentucky revival was all about genuine salvation.

  31. We have to be pretty careful about throwing out signs and wonders as well. They are an integral part of the Gospel, despite what cessationists have to say.

    What are the signs and wonders pointing to, that is the question. Do they lead you away from the word and discipleship, holiness and consecration or do they point to a person or a message that leads you closer to the Lord? When we throw out the supernatural, we are really just a modern Sadducee. And they were rebuked as harshly as a Pharisee was.

    And I think that is the direction many of us have been heading due to the Toronto/Prophetic abuses. And if all error is truth pressed to extremes then the error of rejecting all signs and wonders is self-evident.

  32. Supernatural healing, casting out demons, walking on water, the feeding of the 5 thousand etc… they all had a purpose.

    Some of this stuff makes no logical sense….and that to me is exactly how the occult works.

    It depends on the person who is moving in the Spirit.

    I know what you are going to say-supernatural moves of the spirit are not always logical. That’s the nature of the supernatural.

  33. Perhaps sometime they are simply to show that there is a supernatural. The world needs to see that Christianity is more than just another religion, that God is actually involved in the now.

    Most churches that reject the supernatural are cold, dead religion. Some others are just the flesh trying to be religious. We need the supernatural today as much as we did then.

    You are right about usage. We should be using signs and wonders to point to Jesus, not to entertain ourselves.

  34. I missed your one comment before I commented. I understand what you are saying. Thanks for your insite.

  35. I may have mentioned this in one of my previous posts, if not, I will say it now. The first name of the Great Revival, when it was still small in its area, was the “Red River Revival,” because it began along Red River, which runs through Kentucky and two adjoining counties of Tennessee. Later it was called the Kentucky Revival, and then the “Great Revival.” When the Great Revival was waning, some of the people living along Red River sought God for a renewal of the revival. What some of them said was that God had “assured” them that sometime far in the future, near the end of the age, there would be another revival. (The Great Revival had covered the entire South, along with western Pennsylvania and souther Ohio.) This later revival would be similar to the Great Revival, only much bigger. As a child, 50 years ago, I was told that this revival would come sometime in the early 21st century. Since this is the early years of the 21st century, I would guess that the time is very near.

  36. We need it right now. Millions are perishing while we play games in the church. They perish while we argue about doctrine and they perish while we defend personal agenda over divine mandate.
    We need a revival right now so that we can see who God is and end the debate in our time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s