The Care and Feeding of Fig Leaves

by the Rev. Eugene Roberts

... and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Genesis 3 :7b)

And ever since Adam and Eve came to the curious conclusion that a fig leaf was an adequate cover-up, man has operated under the same delusion. Perhaps these ancient progenitors can be excused on the basis of naivete but there is no excuse for today's highly developed civilization to compound that original ignorance. Yet fig leaves are bigger and better than ever.

No one takes better care of their fig leaves than modern man. From the time that he discovers that a basic part of his nature (namely sex) is to be denied, he cultivates and nurtures and pampers his fig leaf until the day of victory arrives and he is completely, and for all times, covered up. In tribute to this great emancipation, we really ought to garland our graves with that tried-and-true symbol of self-justification — the fig leaf.

Now to those spoil-sports who say there is no connection between the fig leaf and man's lack of inner integrity, congratulations! Already your fig leaf is withering.

But be careful. It is the nature of the fig leaf to sprout at the slightest encouragement.

For example, Adam and Eve were guilty of disobedience. This was their sin. Now, wha t would seem to be a sensible solution to the problem of breaking a law? Why, of course, put on some clothes! Just think how such hard-headed logic would assist in modern criminology. All a lawbreaker would have to do to pay his debt to society would be to attempt some kind of cover-up. No matter whether successful or not or related to the nature of the crime. The attempt is what counts, you see. But wait a minute — the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were punished, and quite severely, too. Precisely; and they should have been. For there was no connection between the fig leaf and their disobedience. It completely missed the point, and justice had not been satisfied.

So they were thrown out of the garden, no doubt with Eve clucking at Adam for not standing up for his rights and Adam whining about her poor taste in styles of fig leaves. "Maybe if the hemline had just been' lower, it would have been all right! And Eve, you'll have to admit that your neckline was just a bit too low. After all, if you had a navel, it would have shown."

The fig leaf in the Adam and Eve story is as symbolic as Adam and Eve themselves. Just as they symbolize man's disobedience of his creator and his subsequent shame, so the fig leaf symbolizes man's pitiable at-tempt to cover his act. The inadequacy of this, even the pitiful humor in this limited repentance, reveals the ease with which man fools himself.

First of all, the fig leaf avoids the main issue, which is not that Adam and Eve were naked, but that their motives were wrong. The idea that man can hide wrong motives of the spirit by covering his body is as ridiculous as it is popular. Their sin was not that they were naked but that they had disobeyed. They put on the fig leaf covering, not for protection or decoration, but for absolution. A more ridiculous idea is hard to conceive.

Not only did their donning of the leaf miss the point, the very act of evaluating part of God's creation as good and part of it as bad lulled them into believing that they had acquitted themselves to the point of getting back into God's good graces. They were now supposed to be in possession of the knowledge of good and evil, but if wearing a waist apron is the right delineation, then it must rank with history's strangest choices. It would have been just as consistent to have tied the fig leaves over their ears or dangled them from their noses.

Man was indeed putting all his "apples" in one basket, and the wrong basket at that. Having saluted the concept of right and wrong with that which was neither symbolically nor literally applicable, he could now devote himself to a more serious pursuit of folly, which he has done with great energy ever since.

No matter how far afield we may go in our conduct as it pertains to the vacillating standards of society, we cannot escape the heart of the matter, which says, "as a man is in his heart, so is he." And so we are propelled to deal with inner motivation, and there isn't a fig leaf big enough or thick enough to cover the nakedness of a disobedient heart.

The fig leaves of society are well documented. One man's fig leaf may be a pious code of conduct with which he masks his real intentions; another's fig leaf may be a philosophy of life which he is quick to verbalize but never gets around to testing in his actions. In his quest for acceptance and respectability, man waves the fig leaves of altruism to cover his basic selfishness, legalism to cover his basic pride, racism to cover his basic inferiority complexes and cynicism to cover his basic disillusionment.

What about the social nudist? Where is his fig leaf? It would seem that this is at least one group that has abandoned the historic covering. And yet, is the removal of the fig leaf getting to the heart of the matter any more than putting it on really covers up? Certainly it seems to be a healthy and reasonable revolt against stupid convention. And perhaps this is reason enough. But is it basic enough to insure the proper maturing of the movement?

If social nudism is to ever be more than a fringe movement operating within the legal limits but outside the prevalent mores, it must devote itself to concerns beyond the mere removal of clothing under certain situations. It must work for the time when it can drop the fig leaves of non-sexuality, singles only, first-name only basis and certain puritan standards of conduct. It must be prepared to deal more deeply and more consistently with persons' motivations for becoming nudists. There are many heartening signs that some of this may be taking place but there is still a long way to go before the fig leaf of condescension to society's standards is completely dropped. Frank publications with realistic illustrations is not the final answer. There is still too much of the apologetic which is inherent in the stress on rules and regulations. Also, there is too much of the thumb-the-nose-at-society kind of rebellion. And what about nudists in non-nudist activities? Does everybody always have to be pictured nude? Is not nudism more than just an absence of clothes?

Because man is not perfect, he will always have a psychological need for fig leaves, and nudism is no exception. But perhaps it needs a little more integrity in dealing with the taboos of those who have shed other taboos. The first step toward maturity is the ability to look at oneself honestly and critically. Social nudism has taken an all-important first step. Now it is time to take another.