Talk:James K. A. Smith

Untitled

This may not be the best-formatted article, as it is my first. However, I think that it is necessary because while Smith holds the title of Associate Professor, he is relatively a young scholar with an already impressive body of work. In addition, he is publishing increasingly recognized popular works in his field. - the originator of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greendayz (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think it is notable. We'll see. MER-C 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll base my argument for notability first on the fact that a Google search for Radical Orthodoxy [1] shows that he is probably the foremost North American popularizer of Radical Orthodoxy. While he may not technically fit the notability guidelines, as he did not invent Radical Orthodoxy itself, I think that he is obviously one of its major figures, if not the North American inventor of the theology.

Secondly, this book review [2] in Christianity Today demonstrates Smith's role in popularizing Radical Orthodoxy specifically in North American Evangelicalism.--Greendayz 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A seminal article on Smith has been missed: see here: https://peterschuurman.ca/2019/06/17/the-corpus-of-james-k-a-smith-worldview-made-flesh/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.144.213 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think James KA Smith is an important figure

I think James KA Smith is worthy of a wikipedia entry. Although he's young, he's already a prolific author and a well-known figure in American continental philosophy circles as well as a well-known figure in many theology circles. Calvin College is one of the premier institutions for undergraduate philosophy study and holding a professorship there is nothing to sneeze at. Smith is noteable and has a bright future ahead of him.-- Hay4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by West6557 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst wiki-bio I have ever seen

Yes, the subject's publishing history appear to be impressive. However, the text of the article is nothing but vague postmodern generalities. Will someone who knows the subject please do a re-write? Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)