Let's begin Chapter 1: The Mystery of Evil of Christopher Wright's book with some thoughts and reflection.
If you're into comics and superheroes, maybe some would agree with me that the first series of Batman movies (those that stared Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney) has to be said as a bad adaptation of a superhero character to the big screen. But come 'Batman Begins', I was totally blown away by the storyline. I especially like how Bruce Wayne evolved into the mysterious Batman. It was one of the ultimate origins story of a superhero adapted to the big screen and with that minimizes the mysterious character that superheroes have.
But as for evil as explained by C.H.Wright in his book, it's origin is somewhat difficult to pin point. I've heard people use texts like Isaiah 14:4-21 and Ezekiel 28:1-17 as reference points to how evil or rather Lucifer's fall from grace came about. On these two texts C.H.Wright says that "they were written originally to describe the defeat and death of historical human kings, and so it is a dubious exercise to build detailed doctrinal statements about the devil or the "underworld" upon them." (40) But although that may be the recurring fact about the two bible passages "they have a spiritual counterpart that is recognizably satanic." (40) For a more clearer description of Satan and his demons read Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and Revelation 12:7-9.
So, what are we to make of trying to understand evil and let alone it's origin to get a better understanding on things? For C.H.Wright, "evil does not make sense. "Sense" is a part of our rationality that in itself is part of God's creation and God's image in us. So evil can have no sense, since sense itself is a good thing." (42) Evil is not something that has any part of anything God created so therefore evil is "an intruder, an alien presence that has made itself almost (but not finally) inextricably "at home"." (42) Because Evil is foreign it makes no sense and should stay at the point of making no sense.
I must admit that I am frustrated with not being able to understand evil and it's origin and especially when C.H.Wright tell us to park at the space where we simply embrace the fact that evil should not be understood and that it simply makes no sense. But I do see the wisdom in taking this slant to making amends to our brains that always seeks understanding.
C.H.Wright goes on to say that "...God...has chosen not to explain the orgin of evil, but rather wants to concentrate my attention on what he has done to defeat and destroy it." (43) But this does not negate our desperate emotions to ask deep and frustrating questions on the mystery of evil. We are all the more encouraged to do so.
Evil will always have the capacity to pry our emotions out in the open but we are to take comfort that we are not meant to understand it but to work with God in trusting what he did and what he is doing to defeat it. 
I should state that I was drawn by the book because stuff happening in my personal life that makes me echo the title of the book "The God I Don't Understand". But i have to say that I have always been drawn to books that revolve around this type of subject matter, books like "Disappointment with God" come to mind by Yancey. These types of books explore these mysteries and questions that our heart longs in seeking answers to them. We all seek reasonable answers i might add. In bible school, i tried my take on the question but I was way off target, come to think of it. But this question keeps on nagging every time the belief in God is put up front. The question about evil and how God, if he is all good would allow suffering.
I thought I'd try something different with this particular book. After I've read a chapter, I'd blog about it. So some sort of experimentation going on here. I'd probably post something that really gripped me rather than do a blow by blow exposition on a chapter.
Christopher Wright who wrote the book wrote at the end of the introduction part of the book about what he biblical precedent he hopes to archive for this book, and he uses Psalms 73 to explain this. The psalm starts on a positive manner affirming Israel's faith in God (v.1) but moves on to the author's struggle with God's ways of handling things (v.2-14).
In the middle part of the psalm Wright explains that the author does two things. First, he explains that the psalmists although raises perplexing questions he does not go overboard for fear of "betraying God's people" (22). The second, as Wright explains again, the author of the psalm "goes to worship in the house of God with God's people. There, in the context of worship, his perspective is changed and he sees things in the light of God's ultimate will and moral government." Wright further states again that the psalmist "lets us hear both his struggling lack of understanding and his restored, worshiping faith." (23)
The part that caught my attention was when Wright mentions in the middle part of the psalm, namely the first half that is verse 15. This part raises wisdom in how we are supposed to carry out our hard fought questions especially on a public platform; books, blogs, sermons, teaching. Write states that
"There is a proper pastoral limit to the voicing of protest- as God reminded Jeremiah on one occasion (Jer 15:19) and as Isaiah warned his listeners (Isa 45:9-13). I have prayed constantly in working on this book that i may not transgress that limit. I want to explore questions that the bible itself wrestles with, but i want to build up God's people, not betray their faith." (22) (emphasis mine)
I think this does serve as a reminder for us especially in the blogspehere when we are relaying views, not necessarily on evil, suffering and God but on any other subject matter for that sake. But at points though, when i think of the psalms, there are some that push the limit, like the one where the psalmist wants God to dash the heads babies of the Babylonians. But it does make me ask what is a pastoral limit to voicing protest? Protest in a sense that asks God some deep questions on why he is not acting up to who we believe and learn that he is.
