This week’s Reflections was written by Mark Johnsen, pastor at the Brookings United Church of Christ.

The Lord will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore. — Isaiah 2:4

During my time at Sioux Falls Seminary I learned about what is called “Just War Theory.” The first simplistic explanation of note from a Christian that war could sometimes be necessary (and even good) came from St. Augustine in the 4th century. But a slightly more refined (and defined) explanation with three main themes came from St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Since that time, his theory has evolved into what are now commonly considered the nine central tenants of what constitutes a just war. The first four that deal with the right to go to war are:

• 1. Competent authority — meaning only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice.
• 2. Just cause — meaning the reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
• 3. Probability of success — meaning there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable. This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause.
• 4. Last resort — meaning all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities.

The last five that deal with the right conduct within war are:

• 5. Distinction — meaning the acts of war should be directed toward enemy combatants, and those combatants who surrender, are prisoners, or are injured, must not be attacked.
• 6. Proportionality — meaning combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated.
• 7. Military necessity – meaning an attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy, and it must be an attack on a legitimate military target with a military objective.
• 8. Fair treatment of prisoners of war —meaning enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.
• 9. No evil means — meaning combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).

Based on these criteria, I have concluded that Ukraine’s response to the attack on their country could be considered a just war on their part. But Israel’s response to the attack on their country is not a just war, and has actually evolved into a genocide. Let us all pray for an end to both of them very soon, and for the day when Isaiah's prophecy will come to fruition.