As much fun as I've had chiding academia, they really aren't to blame — at least not fully. Musicology, like any history-based discipline, has profoundly influenced us, expanding our knowledge of the world from which we have evolved, and has given us considerable insight into how things were done in the past. This knowledge, however, is only useful if it is applied in a manner to which modern society can relate. The danger is when this historical knowledge changes from perspective to dogma. In recent years musicologists have learned, in their hit-or-miss fashion, that a lot of the dogma to which they had subscribed wasn't quite so black and white. For example, string players have learned that vibrato was actually a part of 18th - possibly 17th - century performance; maybe not as broadly or consistently used as the late 19th century and later, but, there nonetheless. So, playing Bach and Co. with little extra colour does not have to be eschewed as had been thought. Again historical insight makes for a good jumping off point; but alas, we live in the 21st, not the 18th century.
The glory of it all is that the organ by the sheer magnificence of its presence can't help but impress. Visually as compelling as the architectural wonders, both secular and sacred, in which the organ is often housed, tonally and sonically as great as or even greater than a symphony orchestra, it really should be a no-brainer to make a performance of the music emanating from those pipes one of the most moving experiences in a person's life. And occasionally that happens — just not enough. The various attempts to attract new people, such as Pipe Organ Encounters, simply attract kids who are already predisposed to the organ. Events like Pedals, Pipes and Pizza may have had a certain novelty when initially conceived; but not unlike nuns with guitars singing "folk mass" they were never terribly successful largely because they always seemed a little insincere, and now just seem hokey and contrived. Again, people (especially nowadays with our celebrity conscious society) want to be entertained. That in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.
Most of us who were initially attracted to that which we love (a person, work of art, movie, piece of music, etc.) were almost always drawn in by something visceral about the source of that attraction. It doesn't necessarily have to be visual; but, again in our highly visually-oriented society, it "can't hoit" to appeal to the ear through the eye. Virgil Fox understood, and his audiences (made up of mostly of non-organists, whether he was doing his "Heavy Organ" programme or a "straight" recital) obviously appreciated that fact. And that's the point. As successful as Mr. Fox was, one can only imagine how much more effective he might have been if the organ "establishment" had embraced his dynamism instead vilified it.