Dartmouth Apologia review, Part I

As I mentioned yesterday, The Dartmouth Apologia published its winter issue on Friday. I've been involved in the production of this issue in the capacity of editorial consultant, but I was handed a copy of the final product for the first time on Sunday. It is beautifully designed and laid-out; from front to back it is nothing short of visually stunning.

As I embark on a review of the content of the journal, I offer two provisos: First, as previously mentioned, I have seen a number of iterations of all of these articles. I will do my best to comment only on what appeared in the final version; please bear with me if I slip. Should I refer to a passage that seems nonexistent, that's probably because it is. Second, and more importantly, I strongly encourage you to read the articles for yourself and form your own opinions first. As of this morning, the new issue had not been placed online, but check back frequently ( www.dartmouthapologia.org is the official website). If you're on campus, pick up a hard copy of the journal. If past years' distribution efforts are any guide, you shouldn't have to look too hard.

I'd like to begin with some broad comments on the issue as a whole before delving into the individual articles. This edition consists of six student articles, one guest article and an interview. The "Final Thoughts" segment that was a mainstay during my undergrad years is again missing (the last issue didn't have it either). I suspect the editorial board has opted to discontinue this feature, which is too bad. I always appreciated its brief, uniquely personal look at an item of faith. Hopefully it will be revived in future years.

The articles are of their usual high quality. Technical writing proficiency combined with intellectually rigorous scholarship and discourse has always been the hallmark of the Apologia, and I'm pleased to see that this tradition is alive and well. The two seniors, three juniors and one sophomore who comprised this edition's writing staff are articulate, thoughtful and lucid writers and thinkers who have clearly poured countless hours of work into this endeavor.

The most notable omission in the Winter 2011 edition is a clear presentation of the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with using logic to show that a supernatural being must exist (as Blair and to a lesser extent Woods and DeBaun do), but this seems to me of little use if you stop short of considering--somewhere in the issue--whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is that God, incarnate and resurrected. There are a lot of religions with a lot of gods out there, and it is vital to take that last step and show that the one true God is in fact the triune God of the Bible. (My good friend and Apologia co-founder Charlie Dunn '10 used to insist on including such a piece in every issue.)