Thoughts on a Franke without a conclusion.

I just finished The Character of Theology: An introduction to it's Nature, Task and Purpose by John Franke and it provided me some interesting thoughts on the nature of revelation. We can see God and truth through revelation but language and culture obscures our interpretation and understanding.
While I am to the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and the historico-grammatical hermeneutic that accompanies that, I also am afraid of my own fallenness, and I understand that I'm going to misunderstand the text. As fallen human beings, our understanding of the truth is not perfect. Postmodernity allows us to see that, if we use it cautiously. What it does not show us is that the Holy Spirit can and does work in renewed believers to clarify the Scriptures. Yes, our fallenness obscures the truth. No, that does not mean that the truth is inaccessible. We can know the truth as we know God, hazily, darkly and through a prism of our own context and language, which includes sin.
In a slightly more terrestrial vein, it is also important to be sure we remain in community. We often miss or ignore what the Spirit says, and it's important to have other believers around us to remind us of the truth.
I have two specific beefs with this book, and they both involve historical theologians. I am a little uncomfortable with his reliance on Karl Barth, I am pleased at least that Franke does not use him entirely as a straw man, as is often the habit of evangelicals, but to lean so heavily on a single theologian is questionable, especially when that theologian is as controversial among evangelicals as Karl Barth. The other issue I have is his defense of Origen. I understand, perhaps, the effort to vindicate someone you feel is misunderstood, but Franke builds a defense of culture for a man normally considered to be a heretic. Origen is probably misunderstood, but even allowing for that, his beliefs are difficult to fit into a truly Christian system. It seems that saying "his culture confused him" is more of a critique of the culture than a defense of the man.