Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics

I emailed my philosophy of language professor a similar question to the problem that I am going to propose in this post.

Speech-Act theory is a philosophy of language that attempts to describe how we use language. It consists of three main speech-acts:

(1) locution - the actually utterance itself (an utterance can be written or spoken)
(2) illocution - how the hearer understands the utterance
(3) perlocution - if the hearer performs the speech-act

Let me explain the differences between (1), (2), and (3). Take the utterance of:

Shut the door!

The locution will be the actual words of 'shut the door'. The Illocution is whether the hearer understands what the speaker wants her to do. Does the speaker actual intend the hearer to shut the door? The perlocution is if the speaker intends by uttering 'Shut the door!' for the hearer to shut the door, the the hearer will shut the door - to fulfill the perlocution.

Speech-act theory is now prevalent in evangelical theology. Kevin van Hoozer brought speech-act theory into vogue by using it as a means to refute Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, Paul Ricouer, and etc. Now, those guys don't deserve to be taken seriously becuase they don't obey the law of non-contradiction. Nor are they good philosophers of language - instead they obfuscate and confuse language. So, van Hoozer somewhat opened pandora's box in theology.

The problem with speech-act theory is that it is radical contextualism. In other words, by using speech-act theory to interpret the Bible may have some problems. Radical contextualism asserts that utterances have no meaning outside of context. So take the utterance used above, 'Shut the door!' We can only know what shut the door means in the context in which it is uttered, we cannot understand it in abstraction. So I don't know if this is bad for being able to worship God or not. Can we say that God is love, becuase we are removing what we know about God from context and placing it into another context. Hence, in every context an utterance means something different. Anyway, if there is something here, I thought that this might be something that I could attempt to get published in a journal. It seems to be a dangerous view for evangelicals to hold to, especially if upon uttering verses from the Bible in a different context, we are saying something different from what the Bible utters.