O, how I wish St. Jacques would have chosen another word for his hermenuetic than decontruction. When speaking, I prefer to pronounce it with a French accent, and then go on to tell people that it really means something different in French. Unfortunately, that's not really accurate (as it is for, say, "difference" and différance). Honestly, I spend some time almost every week explaining that Derridaian decontruction does not mean "to tear down" but "to break through." As Jack Caputo writes in Deconstruction in a Nutshell, anyone with half-an-ear for the Jewish or Christian scriptures will recognize that "decontruction has a very messianic ring to it."
This connection between deconstruction and the Bible is especially meaningful, methinks. I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts. This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this). And I think that deconstruction is the only hermeneutical avenue that comes close to expressing the transgressive nature of our sacred text.
Deconstruction is bent on showing the limits of all hermeneutic frameworks, including its own. It doesn't so much tear them down as burst through them, pushing them beyond their limits, showing their inevitable weaknesses.
Why? Because postmoderns don't believe in anything, of course. At least, that's what the critics will say. But, in fact, to read Derrida and Caputo and Kearney makes clear that the raison d'être for deconstruction is always justice. When other hermeneutics stagnate, deconstruction shouts, "There's more here, there's a perfect justice to be had, and we can't rest until wer get there!"
And I also like deconstruction because, in it's own, self-reflexive deconstructing, it is deeply ironic. And I like irony. Indeed, I think that Jesus liked irony, too (particularly the Johnanine Jesus). Derrida was playful, he avoided answering questions, he liked soap operas, and he knew perfectly well that he was stepping into the very traps that he had laid for others. In other words, he didn't take himself too seriously, and deconstruction is appropriately playful as a result. Play and irony -- two pills that I think more theologians should swallow.
I'm well aware of the many and vigorous critiques of Derrida and deconstruction, and I appreaciate them. But I'm not looking for a foolproof hermeneutic -- no such hermeneutic exists. I'm looking for a hermeneutic that roughly parallels the syntax of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and, IMHO, deconstruction does that.