Justice? (Part 2)

So I have been reading the book of Habakkuk lately. At New Horizon we have been discussing God and the problem of evil (you know, why does God let bad things happen to good people?) and the prophet Habakkuk addresses this question to a certain degree. He just doesn't do so in a way that suits my western, post-enlightenment sensibilities.

What I mean is he doesn't articulate a logical, linear, apologetic for the problem. He simply records a somewhat oblique discussion of justice between himself and the God he assumes can/should do something about evil in the world.

The "can do/should do" component is important to me (being western, post-enlightenment and having a penchant for logical, linear apologetics). In my mind, the issue of God and evil can be reduced to the point that there are two possible solutions:

1) God is able to do something about evil, but not willing to.
2) God is willing to do something about evil, but is unable to.

Of course many of my fellow evangelicals look at the issue and offer up a third solution: God is able, but not willing to do something about it now, rather, he is in the process of doing something about it. I think this viewpoint is what Ivan is dismantling in The Brothers Karamazov (see previous post).

Maybe God's motives just don't make sense, in which case the discussion is futile, or at least not logical or linear.