[Avengers: Infinity War has been in theaters for over two weeks. With that in mind, MASSIVE spoilers to follow.]

I hope that by now the majority of you have watched Avengers: Infinity War. Some are praising it, some are less impressed. At the end of the day, the most I’ll say is this: it is a cinematic feat to have produced a whole series of films over the course of a decade that culminate in a climactic feature-film conflict. My mind is blown by that alone.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It nailed many of the characters interactions I was dying to see. The banter between Thor and the Guardians of the Galaxy was a treat. Watching Doctor Strange and Tony Stark compete for the Alpha role contrasted how differently each of them has developed, despite having near laughably similar origin movies. But most reviewers agree that the narrative arc of Avengers: Infinity War is concerned almost exclusively with the Mad Titan, Thanos.

Thanos’ quest for the complete collection of Infinity Stones (glowing rocks that together grant omnipotence) stems from his desire to bring balance to the universe. Thanos witnessed the poverty and famine that took place on his home planet, and resolved to indiscriminately wipe out half of the universe. In doing so, Thanos believes that the universe will now have enough resources for the living half to flourish without lack.

Many a film reviewer has praised Thanos for his complexity of character and motivation. The Mad Titan appears as one who is solving a problem via the most logical means. The villain’s Malthusian inclination creates a bizarre quest to save the universe.

The kicker of Avengers: Infinity War is that Thanos succeeds. The film’s closing moments are set into motion by the iconic snapping of his Infinity Gauntlet-clad fingers, and half of existence is extinguished. It is truly tragic (albeit rather light on the despair when you read the MCU release schedule).

Thanos wins. Not only does he win in accomplishing his quest, he wins the argument. The discussion is his because no Avenger engages the ethical conundrum beyond “No it’s wrong to kill millions of people!”

The Avengers have no way to refute Thanos’ philosophy because they too are living by a theology of scarcity. Even Captain America, for all of his virtue and integrity that has wrestled with the like of SHEILD and Tony Stark, has few words throughout the whole movie.

So what is a theology of scarcity? A theology of scarcity asserts that all resources are finite, and that there is not enough to sustain the flourishing of humanity and creation. The remedy to such a theology is a theology of abundance: God has imbued Creation with enough to go around. When we adopt a theology of abundance, we give generously from our own stores, knowing that God will provide more, because God provides for us. Abundance is woven throughout the biblical text. Walter Breuggemann wrote about it far more eloquently than I can. As Breuggemann observes, it is prominently illustrated when Jesus’ feeds the four thousand in Mark 8.

Thanos’ theology of scarcity is all encompassing. It is how he sees all things. His binding of Eitri’s hands and extinguishing of the forge at Nidavellir reflect that he views power as a limited commodity. The last object forged must be his Infinity Gauntlet.

Likewise, Thanos’s confession of his love for his daughter Gamora reflects this theology. It is because she is the only person the Mad Titan loves, she must be sacrificed so he may obtain the Soul Stone. While Thanos and his lackey Ebony Maw claim that all are “children of Thanos,” Gamora is the only one whom he says he loves. His treatment of the sisters Nebula and Gamora has only differed in one way: Nebula has received cybernetic implants as her penalties for losing duels with her adoptive sister. The duels were demanded by their surrogate father, Thanos. Thanos views love as another commodity ruled by his theology of scarcity.

When discussing resources and scarcity, there is much to be unpacked. The global situation is one of hunger and poverty. Ethical questions concerning the use of natural resources abound. And some will be quick to say that certain economic models find their foundation in either a theology of scarcity or of abundance. So much to talk about.

Instead I will ask what many film goers have asked: What will happen in Avengers 4?

For my part, this is less a question of plotting and events. Rather, will Avengers 4 offer a counter solution to Thanos’ climactic moment of victory? Once the mighty Avengers restore the universe, will they have an answer to the issue of galactic scarcity? Will we see the hope of the MCU hinge on a theology of abundance?

I’m doubtful. Images of generosity begetting generosity does not a summer blockbuster make.

If there is hope for such an ending, I see it in the arc of Dr. Strange. The Sorcerer Supreme who was charged with guarding the Time Stone at all costs, saw among 14,000,605 possible futures only one in which there was victory over Thanos. And he dies, handing over the precious artifact in order to save the life of Tony Stark. This was a stone that was so coveted and powerful that to lose it meant catastrophe.

Perhaps Dr. Strange saw a future that could only be brought about when he no longer viewed the power as a finite resource limited to one green stone. Instead, I hope he saw that power was something not to be hoarded and guarded but to be relinquished. Perhaps we will learn that the Time Stone was a trinket compared to Stark’s life, and it is the act of self-giving that will bring about the “balance” that Thanos so desired.

Until then… I don’t feel so good…