In a previous post I noted some striking parallels between pacifism and abolitionism. In addition, there's a striking parallel between abolitionism and the Word of Faith movement–specifically: name-in-and-claim-it theology.
Word of Faith healers "bind" that "demon of cancer." They "take authority" over that "demon of drug abuse."
If you're not cured, that's not because the faith-healer was a charlatan, but because you didn't have enough faith.
By the same token, AHA "demands" the immediate and total abolition of abortion. It accuses evangelical prolifers of lacking faith in God's providence.
"Abolition relies upon the Providence and Sovereignty God: All we must seek to do is be faithful and follow Him as we leave the results in His hands. (We walk in line with Providence)."
An obvious problem with this claim is that, according to Scripture, trust in God isn't defined by faith in what God is able to do, but by what God promised to do.
God has the power to put an end to warfare tomorrow. God has the power to stop murderers in their tracks.
Does this mean a Christian should believe that murder will end tomorrow? Does this mean a Christian should believe that warfare will end tomorrow?
What God can do and what God will do are often two very different things. Do I lack faith in God if I doubt that there will be no more murder tomorrow? Do I distrust God if I doubt that there will be no more war tomorrow? Hardly!
God hasn't promised to exercise his omnipotence in that regard. You can't predict the future from God's sovereignty.