I wrote a few weeks ago about Obama’s former pastor. It’s only fair that I cover Sarah Palin’s as well. I have some familiarity with the Assembly of God (AOG). I respect a few people that go to or used to go to that variety of church. The summer after I went to a black baptist church in Pittsburgh, I went to a pentecostal church in Flagstaff. I have experience in both types of venues, though the leadership of Ebenezer in Pittsburgh was much better than Obama’s church in Chicago.
I disagree with the AOG on several theological points. I believe that they have grossly misunderstood the concept of “tongues”. I am coming to believe that they have an inaccurate understanding of the so called “end times”. My new favorite charge to levy against modern churches is that they are anachronistic, namely, they are applying concepts of our present day to a book from 2000 years ago indiscrimenantly. Jesus meant something specific to his context when he said things, and we have put a layer of our own, uninformed, views into the readings. Paul spoke in a specific cultural climate, and we need to interpret what he says starting from that background, and not from our background. In the end, however, AOG churches are interpreting the Bible, which is a lot better than interpretting nothing in particular. I approve of using the Bible as your source of doctrine, though think they’re reading it through the wrong goggles.
Meanwhile, this specific pastor makes a few claims that I believe are his own views, loosely connected to the Bible for moral support:
1) He states that Palin wouldn’t drill because she’s a Christian. This is an overextension of Genesis, and ignores other parts of Genesis where we’re told to subjugate the natural world (not quite in those terms). My conclusion: The Bible doesn’t offer a clear opinion on pipelines in the Alaskan tundra. And to make a policy statement on her behalf, starting from such shaky biblical foundations, is manipulative and a little unsavory.
2) He underlines God’s sovereignty in dealing with the end times. This is a deft handling of that situation, and is accurate across most denominations. Whatever he really believes about specifics, he nailed that answer.
3) He gave an excellent answer for a summary of the worldview of a typical Christian in his congregation, namely “says God loves people, people can access him and he’s given us wisdom for living”. You can’t argue with that; it will resonate with most Christians.
The Jew-for-Jesus that spoke at her new church is a borderline heretic. Attributing specific disasters to God’s judgment involves divining God’s plan in dangerous ways. The same guy that would say that his grandfather died for God’s touchy-feely glorification somehow can’t willy-nilly decide that people dying when a bulldozer rams a car is judgment. Who winnows such events into those categories? Not this Brickner guy, I know that much.
Palin, meanwhile, is well versed in what I would call “Christian speak”. To “have a heart for XXXXX” is a very common modern Christianism. As someone who does not support legislative morality, I approve of Palin’s view on the difference between private views and public regulations.
Obama’s church background was a big black eye to his campaign. Palin’s shouldn’t be the same.
Words 
The idea that drilling for oil “as a Christian” is somehow worse than about twenty-six ZILLION other things that modern Christians routinely do — such as drive cars, use electricity, or keep more of their own money for themselves than feeds and clothes their families — is one of the most adorable things I’ve ever heard.