The Portrayal of Religion in Ken Follett's "The Pillars of the Earth"

I've just finished reading Ken Follett's novel The Pillars of the Earth. My wife recommended the book to me and, though I had serious doubts about reading anything with an Oprah's Book Club sticker on the cover, I'm glad that she did. I had heard of the book and knew that it was immensely popular and widely read. I also knew that its story dealt, however tangentially or superficially, with religion. I was interested to see how a modern work of popular fiction would portray a historical society where Christianity was absolutely central to every aspect of the social order. What I found was a bit disappointing, but highly instructive.

I should begin my commentary with a caveat: I fully appreciate that the book is intended to entertain. It was not written to effect some fundamental change in the reader, but only to convince them to continue turning pages - and it does that well. Although Follett mentions his atheism in the introduction, I'm quite certain he had no intention of using the story as a tool of indoctrination. The book is, simply put, about the building of a cathedral and the many lives that are intertwined with that monumental task - nothing more, nothing less.

So my interest in Follett's portrayal of religious devotion is not rooted in a desire to unmask some intense anti-religious bigotry or allege any vast atheistic conspiracy; I am, however, interested in examining the prevailing attitudes toward religious devotion in popular culture, especially in works where their influence may otherwise go unchallenged or even unnoticed. With this in mind, I found Follett's work to be entirely and discouragingly antagonistic to the idea of genuine religious devotion.

Some may think this an overly harsh assessment. "After all," they may say, "several of the most sympathetic characters in the book are deeply religious." This, in a sense, is true. But more often than not, a character's goodnes shines through in spite of their religious conviction rather than because of it. The book is intensely cynical.

Follett's characters take a pragmatic approach to religion. It is used as a tool of manipulation and control, even by those in the story whose devotion is genuine. The one character who demonstrates an unshakable commitment to God is still portayed as fundamentally flawed by a single-mindedness that causes him to respond legalistically to the weaknesses of others. He is clearly a good man, but Follett leads the reader to conclude that this is so in spite of his religion, which makes him judgmental and unmerciful.

Follett's view of religion is a modern, jaded one. For a devout christian like myself, his perspective (like most other popular depictions of religion) seems shockingly pessimistic and woefully simplistic. For him, religion is most often nothing but pretense - justification for all manner of evil deeds. Even at its best it is morally limited by its inability to let others live as they see fit. To many modern readers, the idea of religious conviction has become completely synonymous with judgmentalism or even bigotry. And while this may indicate that many religious people have failed to communicate effectively with broader society, I think more of the blame can and should be placed on the hardened heart of the modern reader who refuses to see the actions of others in the best light.

Because of his skewed view of religiosity, Follett struggles to craft any character that convincingly embodies a religious ethic and remains sympathetic. I think this reflects the fact that our society has come to regard tolerance as the highest good. And an undereducated and unchurched people have concluded that religious conviction, by virtue of its claim to transcendent truth, is the worst sort of intolerance.

This idea - that religion, even at its best, unnecessarily constrains otherwise good people by insisting that they conform their actions to the standards of a particular dogma - is the product of a society that has traded its willingness to think critically about morality for the unconstrained right to do whathever feels good at the moment; we refuse to make judgments about the actions of others for fear that our own actions will be similarly scrutinized...and we wouldn't want that. In other words, we have arrived at the abortive conclusion that it is fundamentally immoral to make judgments about morality. Is it any wonder that we struggle to approach religious questions in any meaningful way?

Certainly in the history of Christianity there have been many examples of individuals who have imposed unnecessary constraints in order to exercise control over the lives of others for selfish reasons, rather than to glorify God and help their fellow man follow a path that will lead to a more fulfilling life. But to see an inquisitor around every corner (as Follett seems to do) betrays a disturbing paranoia. Men are corruptible. If a Judge behaves unjustly should we conclude the the law itself is the root of the problem? Clearly not - but this is the sort of irrationality that has come to flourish in our society.

As a whole, this book was good - entertaining and well-crafted, if a bit unfocused - but the author's cynicism toward all things religious will make it difficult for the average reader (and certainly the devout christian) to fully sympathize with any of the characters.