In a general way, and not having read any of his books, just a few online articles, I would take his use of "the Eurocentric canon" to refer basically to the assumption in academic circles that academic excellence, rigor, seriousness, etc., are to be defined and measured only, or at least primarily, in ways devised in Europe and in Euro-American institutions, with its corollaries, the devaluing of the academic excellence, rigor, seriousness, etc., that has been devised from non-Eurocentric positions. I'm going to get the
Baptists and Racism DVD, looks like it should be worth the money. Hopefully somebody in Evergreen has one I can borrow, though.
I have no idea what NT Wright (or Jeremiah Wright, for that matter) would make of it.
Those really interested in this subject may also get something out of the lengthy thread (211 posts at this point) in the Mudcat Café that came out of the AG's "nation of cowards" remark: ("
BS:", at the Mudcat, just means the topic is not about music, no reflection on the quality of the discourse.
As for Jim's take, I pretty much entirely disagree. There is
no reason why he should let Jim dictate the direction of flow and impact of spirituality in the interplay between marginalized communities and his scholarship. He didn't say he thought his way was better. He said he thought it was his way. He doesn't dislike (as far as I can tell) Europeans and Americans per se (he is, after all, American himself), but he's fed up to here with being expected to
be European (or
act as if) in order to be taken seriously as a scholar and/or as a Christian.