Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Book Review: The World-Tilting Gospel

For those who are unaware, Dan Phillips of TeamPyro fame recently released a book: "The World-Tilting Gospel" on the masses of evangelicalism. This is Dan’s great attempt at presenting the fundamentals of the Gospel using the whole Bible, and pretty much nothing but the Bible. Dan has taken issue (as many others have) with much of the evangelical church’s watering down or outright refutation of straightforward Biblical teaching. For whatever reason, Dan was kind enough to send me a copy to review after I responded to a call for reviewers on the TeamPyro blog.

Short review: This book is a great overview of Biblical teaching, that not only provides solid exegesis of the whole of the Gospel, but in the process also refutes much (maybe all?) of the major branches of flawed teaching that have infected the modern evangelical church. I would recommend this book for new Christians (I wish I had had it when I was converted, it might have saved me much grief in my first church), those who are curious about the message of the Bible, and those who are in a church where false teaching comes from the pulpit. It is also a good read for any Christian, as a reminder of what the Gospel is and isn't (don't we often need this reminder?), and how it should be constantly changing our lives. I know I was personally challenged by many sections, and I hope others will be to. This book is not a replacement for reading the Bible (and by that I mean reading the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments) for oneself, but it is a great summary of what is contained therein, and what it means for you and for me. Hint: God does not promise you your best life now! The longer review continues below.

First, I do want to say something about style. This book was very easy for me to read, and I think it would be very easy for anyone with an understanding of English to read. Dan is very good at combining different styles of writing, mixing fictional case studies, question and answer, personal anecdotes, relevant references to contemporary culture, and historical quotes (not always together in the same chapter) together in such a way that everything just fits and flows. I realize that Dan would probably say that is all due to the work of a good editor, but an editor can only make good use of the underlying materials.

Second, I appreciate that Dan makes his case using ALL of the Bible, with many scripture references and examples from both the Old and New Testaments. In the reformed camp this is generally a common approach, but I would imagine that to many of those who pick this book up off the shelf at their local bookstore, this may come as a shock that the God in the Old Testament is the same as the God in the New Testament.

Third, I am glad that Dan wrote this book, instead of writing some of the other books that could have been written, such as “teasing out the meaning of” Eph 1:4-6. Speaking of which, I do believe Dan is working on a book on Proverbs, which I’m sure will be very interesting, if this work is any indication. I also marveled again and again how Dan worked in responses to many of the most common heresies in the contemporary church without specific sections; such as the historicity of Adam and Eve, the eternal nature of the God’s plan, that redemption is limited, and that we are utterly incapable of turning from our sin to God without Him first giving us new hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit. By the way, if you disagree with any of that, read the book, his answers are really solid, and there is a lot more than those I have mentioned.

What follows is my commentary on each section of the book. There aren’t a lot of quotes, because honestly, most of the quotable parts were very dependent on previous sections, and so I would have ended up just quoting the whole thing anyways.

Introduction
In the introduction, Dan lays out the major themes of the book, and what he believes is the cause of the current problems in the contemporary evangelical church. He begins with the proposition that the Gospel is world-tilting, i.e. it should (if communicated truthfully and believed correctly) invert our world-view from man-centered to God-centered, and asks why the ancient church changed peoples world-views and the contemporary church, for the most part, does not:
 “Fast-forward to our day and glance around at evangelicanism. All the things that Group A (first-century church) lacked, Group B (modern evangelicanism) has: institutions, sway, numbers, technology, money, equipment, connections, glitz and glamour. Everything except world-tilting! Whatever you can say they are doing, you can’t say evangelicals are turning the world upside down. In fact, you could make a better case that the world has turned the church upside down.”
In a series of points describing what the differences between the ancient and contemporary church practices are that lead to the current crop of problems, we find what I believe is the thesis of the book:
 “Converts to Christ knew what they had been, what they had needed, and what God had done to rescue and transform them. They had a biblical worldview that explained the need for and nature of the Gospel. Modern evangelicals, too often, don’t.” (pg 17, Point 3) 
In the rest of the book, Dan lays out:

  • who we are 
  • who God is
  • how we got where we are
  • what we need
  • what God has done
  • what difference it makes


Explaining each point based on exposition of key bible texts, and refuting common errors and heresies along the way. The book is grouped into four major sections: Part One deals with God, man’s current position before God, and how we came to be in this position. Part Two examines more deeply God’s nature, and how that informs His redemptive work on the cross. In Part Three “we learn how God’s “out there” work of salvation comes to have a revolutionary and transforming impact “in here,” in our own individual lives.” Part Four is focused on applying the Gospel message covered in the first three parts to confront teachings that are keeping Christians from the biblical Gospel model. Finally, Dan ties everything together to show how each Gospel truth should make each Christian a “world-tilter” and “barrier-buster”. In addition, at the end of each section, Dan also provides a helpful summary on how the particular truths expounded in that section are “world-tilting” and “barrier-busting”.

Part One
The three chapters in Part One set the stage for everything that comes after. The chapter titles here are very telling: Ch1: Knowing God and Man, Ch2: What Happened in the Garden, Ch3: Like Father, Like Son. In the first chapter, some common wrong answers as to our self-image are discussed and refuted, such as those who think we are just good people and need a bit of a leg up; those who know they need God, but don’t think they are utterly incapable of choosing to follow God; and those who not only think they contribute something to the process of redemption, but also need to empty themselves to let God completely take over (note that these misconceptions come up again later). Dan proceeds to lay out the Biblical case: that our hearts are utterly deceitful, and therefore, if we would know God and our position before Him, we need to look to the Bible. He then does so in the next two chapters. Chapter two examines the first three chapters of Genesis, with particular attention on “the Fall”, with chapter three illustrating what many would admit is true, that nothing in our sinful nature has changed since Adam and Eve listened to the Serpent and willfully rebelled, and the only cure is a supernatural act. This sets the stage for God’s redemptive plan in Part Two. Note that Dan makes the point that if Adam was not a historical figure, nor a special, direct creation of God (guarding against naturalistic interpretations of Genesis).

Part Two
 Here we have the Gospel: God’s plan to redeem man from his fallen, sinful state; gloriously described for us. Dan begins to lay out the Gospel in a way that I had not really considered before, by first demonstrating that what happened in Genesis 3 was not a surprise to God, and how His various attributes (holiness, love and wisdom) are central to the Gospel. All three of these attributes are key, because they are areas of focus that I know many Christians are often very confused on. We often make light of each of these, believing that our sin is less offensive than it really is; that God should love us “just as we are”; and that He is just really, really smart. I think that Dan would agree that much of the problem in the contemporary church is that God’s love is emphasized too much over His holiness (if holiness is mentioned at all), and that is why it is first in the list. Chapter fives subtitle says it all: “God’s Holy, Loving Wisdom Confronts Our Hopeless, Desperate Need”. The Gospel here is outlined starting in Genesis, and working through history and the progressive revelation given in God’s Word. In this chapter, there is also particular emphasis on core truths: the eternal nature of the plan and election (God has always known who would be saved, and is in control of that situation), the need for a bloody, sinless sacrifice, that was prophesied from Genesis 3 and throughout the Bible. The final chapter in this section goes into more detail of what Christ actually did, or the execution of the rescue plan. With this done, we are of course left with the question: How do we get in?

Part Three
Chapter seven looks at being “declared righteous”, and the fact that those who are so declared are also justified, and the marks of one who is truly justified: hearing the word (this is why we still need preaching and evangelism), repentance (truly turning away from our sin), and vital faith. There can be no repentance without hearing the word, repentance is more than just a change in our minds, and biblical faith “is focused on information, on truth -- on statements of truth. The notion that Christianity is primarily a feeling or an experience is terribly misleading. Christian faith is distinguished by its focus on certain specific affirmations of truth.” Chapter eight then examines the truth of regeneration, or being born again (from above), and how this results in a completely new nature if we are truly born again, one that is increasingly growing in Christ-likeness.

Part Four
This is where things really start to come together. Two chapters here deal with some very serious heresies that impede Christian growth, I particularly like the names Dan gives those who fall into these teachings: Gutless Gracers, Crisis Upgraders, and Muzzy Mystics. For each one, the reasoning behind the teaching is given, and then soundly refuted. In this day and age I think these types of chapters are really important in a book on the Gospel, given that these particular types of heretical teachings are so abundant, and it is very likely that a new believer will encounter them. There are of course many other types of false teachings making the rounds, but I think most of them are dealt with rather well throughout the main body of the book.

The next two chapters deal with “The Flesh” and “The Holy Spirit”, in each case what each of them are, and why they are important. Finally, the last chapter gives nine ramifications of the Gospel (note: Dan nowhere suggests that this list is exhaustive, rather these are what he sees as particularly important ideas resulting from our study of the Gospel over the course of the book). Just to give you an idea of what these are like, here is a quote from #5 (We Mustn’t Reason from “Is” to “Should”):
“Coming up with norms and standards of behavior by observing human society is like drawing up a motor vehicle handbook by filming a drunk driver, or concluding that the average weight is the ideal weight. What is, in this world, is not usually what should be.
The Bible alone shows the truth of the matter. A pristine universe flowed from the vast mind of the perfect God by the power of His word. All was beauty and harmony, and God was at the center. Then sin entered, and chaos erupted on every plane except the divine. The world as we see it is marred by sin. Normal human behavior is broken human behavior, abnormal behavior, when judged by the standard of God’s original intent and stated norms.
God’s unchanging, transcendent moral and spiritual absolutes shatter the world’s echo chamber of self-serving back-patting. This is a world-tilting truth.” (pg 289)
In the afterword, Dan provides us with the scripture passage that served as the reference for this entire study. I would almost say that the book is actually an exegesis of this one passage. Those who are very familiar with their Bibles may be able to discern what the passage is, but for everyone else, I’m not going to give it away. For that, you’ll just have to read the book.

Thank you Dan for this book. I pray that it will find its way into many hands, stony hearts will be replaced with flesh, and eyes will be opened. Amen.

Friday, August 26, 2011

RStudio

If you do any kind of scientific programming, you probably use R or MatLab. One disadvantage to using R previously was the lack of an integrated development environment, unless you were using Emacs. Well, if you code in R, you should really check out the RStudio IDE. It brings a lot of things that have been missing to R development, and has drastically sped up my code development workflow. It works on all three major operating systems (Windows, Mac, Linux), and is fairly customizable.

The biggest thing I'm missing right now is the ability to launch multiple instances, as I often have bigger jobs that I want to have run in the background while I'm working on something else. But it wouldn't surprise me if they will introduce it, or if someone else will (it is an open source project, after all).

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Christians First?

As Christians, our citizenship is in the Kingdom of God first, and our country second. Does acknowledging National Independence days in our houses of worship detract from the idea that we are Christians first, and anything else second? I am a Christian, Husband, Father, Scientist, and Canadian (in that order) living in the USA. Does anyone else think it is wrong to acknowledge Independence Day (USA) or Canada Day or any other national founding day in church services? Obviously we are residents and citizens of particular countries, and I don't think there is anything wrong with celebrating these days, but I wonder if making them a part of church services detracts from the notion that we are Christians first and citizens of a particular country second.

Paper Pastors, Multi-Site Churches

I have been thinking about a few issues lately that I think are actually rather interconnected: Pastors as celebrities (whether they want to or not), paper pastors (that isn't how John MacArthur would preach that section), and multi-site/-campus churches. From what I can tell, each of these are ultimately products of the same sin, the desire to elevate one person above others and worship them instead of God.

If a pastor is a celebrity, then individuals in local churches are likely to place the words of the celebrity pastor over those of their local pastor. Don't get me wrong, listening to other preaching can be an extremely good thing, especially as a sounding board for the theology of your local pastor. My eyes were slowly opened to the apostasy of the elders in one of my old churches thanks to listening to men like John MacArthur and John Piper, and I am thankful for their ministries. But except for those types of instances, should we not be listening and meditating more on the words of our local pastor than those of men such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Sinclair Ferguson, or Mark Dever? I don't think these men have sought out celebrity status in the Reformed camp, but it seems that they have become celebrities, and there are many who idolize them as celebrities.

This feeds right in to the idea of paper or perhaps "virtual" pastors (paper being for reading books by other pastors, virtual for listening or watching sermons by other pastors). Due to the successful ministries of many pastors (see the list of celebrity pastors above), many are able to read books by and listen/watch sermons by other pastors, in addition to sitting under the preaching of their local pastor. Again, in many instances this can be a good thing, not everyone is preaching on the exact same thing, and it is often good to hear other points of view. But if you hold up the words of a "paper" or "virtual" pastor above those of your local pastor, I think there is a problem, especially because John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Joseph Pipa doesn't know you personally, but your local pastor does (or should).

This leads into the idea of multi-site and multi-campus "churches" (such as Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill or John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist). I am using "church" because I don't really know if these would fit the Biblical model of a church with a local pastor expositing God's word to a local group of people week after week. That is what it sounds like Paul was encouraging Timothy to do, wasn't it? Obviously, there have been times in the history of the church where this model could not be followed due to a dearth of Godly teachers, but the norm has been to return to that model as soon as men are raised up to lead and teach. But now, I think due to the idea of pastors as celebrities and "paper" pastors, we are actually seeing churches willfully turn away from the biblical model, and instead embrace one where the person doing the teaching can't even hope to know all the names of those he is preaching to. I know that those who have implemented multi-campus churches see the weekly sermon given by a primary teaching pastor as somehow different from pastoring a local group of people, but I don't think you can have a truly effective impact on people if you do separate the two.

Thoughts?

Friday, July 08, 2011

Allergy Med Free for a Week!

As many of my fellow Louisvillians know, living in the Ohio River Valley is not fun if you have allergies. In fact, some people discover that they have allergies only after moving here because the pollen count is so bad (like my wife). I used to suffer from seasonal allergies in Halifax, but only needed to take a Benadryl once in a while. This year, I moved up to taking an Allegra (or the generic equivalent) every day, and still having some problems with stuffiness.

After suffering with the stuffiness even on meds, I decided to try rinsing out my nasal cavities (see Neti Pots for further information). But I didn't want to spend any amount of money on either a Neti Pot or the plastic squeeze bottles. Thinking about possible alternatives I remembered the little squeeze bulbs we use to remove mucus from my son's nasal cavities when he has a cold:



These things are relatively cheap, and combined with this recipe:

3 tsp iodine free salt (pickling or kosher salt)
1 tsp baking soda
Mix together and store in a container
When needed, mix 1/2 tsp with 8oz water (pre-boiled or distilled)
(source)

Every morning for the past 4 days (not quite a week, but still) I have been squirting this solution up into my sinuses to clean them out (two bulbs worth per side). I admit it is not really fun, but its not that bad either. I haven't taken an allergy pill since Sunday, and I haven't had any serious allergy symptoms, apart from some mild congestion and eye watering when I was walking from the bus yesterday afternoon.

I really like the fact that I'm not taking more drugs (not that I take that many, but the fewer the better, really), and that it costs much less than the pills as well ($1.50 for 4lbs of pickling salt, and not much for baking soda, a lot cheaper than the $.5/day I was spending on allergy meds).

Although the idea of sticking the bulb up your nose to rinse snot out might seem gross, if you suffer from regular allergies, then what have you got to lose?

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Apple Storing Location data

UPDATE 21.04.11: Wired has some information on this: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/

So I saw a link to this website on Apple keeping location data on iPhones the other day, and thought it was very interesting (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/). As I started thinking about it though, I remembered that the locations based on Wifi on the iPad also seemed to be pretty good, and I wondered if Apple was storing that information as well. So using the code here (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3085153/how-to-parse-the-manifest-mbdb-file-in-an-ios-4-0-itunes-backup) to figure out what file was the database, and the other suggestions mentioned by the site, I did some digging into my iPad backup, and lo-behold there is a Table called "WifiLocation", with fields of "MAC", "Timestamp", "Latitude", "Longitude", etc. So I punched some of the Lat-Long coordinates into Google Maps, and although some seemed to be off (i.e. I don't remember being in that location) some of them were definitely right on, actually showing my apartment building.

So not only are they storing the location using Cell towers (and maybe GPS, there is another table called "Location"), they are also storing it based on Wifi. This does not seem like a good thing. I mean location services are great, but why does my iPad need a database of past locations?

I don't know how good many of the locations are, and what exactly is going on as there are multiple entries for any given timestamp. Unfortunately, I won't have time to try and work on this until after next Friday. Maybe someone else will have it all figured out by then.

EDIT: For Windows users (everything above I did in Linux), I have also just found out about this http://code.google.com/p/iphonebackupbrowser/, combining it with an SQLite browser should allow you to see what information is being stored on your iPhone or iPad. I haven't gotten it working yet, but have no reason to suspect it won't.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Theology in Country Music

As I was driving to work this morning, I was listening to the local country station. They played two different songs that I think manage to convey completely opposite worldviews. The first was "Just Another Day in Paradise", by Phil Vassar. I really like this song, and I hope you see why from the lyrics:

The kids screaming, phone ringing
Dog barking at the mailman bringing
That stack of bills - overdue
Good morning baby, how are you?
Got a half hour, quick shower
Take a drink of milk but the milk's gone sour
My funny face makes you laugh
Twist the top on and I put it back
There goes the washing machine
Baby, don't kick it.
I promise I'll fix it
Long about a million other things

Well, it's ok. It's so nice
It's just another day in paradise
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Well, it's two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

Friday, you're late
Guess we'll never make our dinner date
At the restaurant you start to cry
Baby, we'll just improvise
Well, plan B looks like
Dominoes' pizza in the candle light
Then we'll tippy toe to our room
Make a little love that's overdue
But somebody had a bad dream
Mama and daddy
Can me and my teddy
Come in to sleep in between?

Yeah it's ok. It's so nice.
It's just another day in paradise.
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Well, it's two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

Well, it's ok. It's so nice.
It's just another day in paradise.
Well, there's no place that
I'd rather be
Two hearts
And one dream
I wouldn't trade it for anything
And I ask the Lord every night
For just another day in paradise

For just another day in paradise
Well, it's the kids screaming. The phone ringing
Just another day
Well, it's Friday. You're late
Oh yeah, it's just another day in paradise


They then proceeded to play Sugarland's "Something More". The outlook from this song couldn't be more opposite of "Just Another Day in Paradise":

Monday, hard to wake up
Fill my coffee cup, I'm out the door
Yeah, the freeway's standing still today
It's gonna make me late, and thats for sure
I'm running out of gas and out of time
Never gonna make it there by nine

Chorus:
There's gotta be something more
Gotta be more than this
I need a little less hard time
I need a little more bliss
I'm gonna take my chances
Taking any chance I might
Find what I'm looking for
There's gotta be something more

Five years and there's no doubt
That I'm burnt out, I've had enough
So now boss man, here's my two weeks
I'll make it short and sweet, so listen up
I could work my life away, but why?
I got things to do before die

Repeat Chorus

Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate
I believe that happiness is something we create
You best belive that I'm not gonna wait
'Cause there's gotta be something more

I get home 7:30 the house is dirty, but it can wait
Yeah, 'cause right now I need some downtime
To drink some red wine and celebrate
Hey, Armageddon could be knocking at my door
But I ain't gonna answer thats for sure.
There's gotta be something more!

There's gotta be something!

Repeat chorus

Got to be,
Got to be,
Got to be something more!


All of this just made me pause and think about my own life this morning, and whether I was truly thankful for what God has given me, or whether I thought I deserved more from God.

I hope it makes you think too.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Loving the Church

Funny, my reading and listening intersected today in a neat way. I have been listening to John Shearouse preach on Psalm 102, Loving the Dust, and then I was reading Joshua Harris's Dug Down Deep on how Christians should relate to the Church, and was struck by this particular paragraph:

But what if we saw that the church is more than a human program, more than what we disparagingly refer to as organized religion? What if we saw that it originated in the heart and mind of God himself and that his plan began before the dawn of human history and stretches into eternity? What if we learned that the church was so precious to Jesus that he was willing to shed his own blood to obtain it? What if the church is the means by which God has chosen to accomplish his purpose for us and for the world? And what if it is irreplaceable?
If we could see this, then we'd realize that rejecting the church is rejecting God himself.


Two different things to look at, but both very much about how Christians are to love the church.

I know I have not always loved the Church as I should have. Have you?

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Thoughts on Evolution Part 3: Natural Selection

Having examined the literalness of the creation account and the age of the earth, let us now turn to the issue of the evolution of life via natural selection. Keep in mind, that due to how we should regard the creation account and the age of the earth, there is no way a Bible believing Christian should regard this as remotely possible. However, because our secular culture and many Christians take the creation of life by evolution and natural selection as a given, we will examine some of the problems with the theory here.

First, let us define two terms, natural selection and evolution. Natural selection can be described as
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations
(http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection). Evolution is a little trickier, because there are actually two definitions that are used, and although they imply two completely different things, many will use them interchangeably. The first is the scientific literature definition: 
any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
 The second is the one generally held by the general public:
The process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.
 The first is frequently observed occurring in natural and laboratory settings via natural selection or another method. The second has yet to be observed.

Many people, Richard Dawkins included, want to believe that the same natural selection that results in antibiotic resistant bacteria, has also allowed very similar creatures to those bacteria to accumulate enough information to eventually become creatures like you and me, otherwise known as "goo to you" evolution. 

What are the problems with this view? The first and foremost is that natural selection works at the level of information. The DNA sequence in every cell is not just a random sequence, but rather a highly specific set of instructions on how to make everything a cell needs to live, including more copies of itself. When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it does so either through mutation of the target, or by acquiring a beneficial protein from another type of bacterium. As a mutation almost always results in a loss of function, it will only remain if the selective pressure of the antibiotic continues to be applied. This is also true of any acquired protein as well, as these are often encoded in packets of DNA that are not integrated into the bacterial genome (or original set of instructions), but are only kept and transmitted to progeny as long as the selective pressure is applied.

In addition, as far as I am aware, no one has answered the problem of increasing information required for evolution. In fact, most known mechanisms of evolution actually decrease the information content in the genome. Imagine a book, wherein letters, words or entire paragraphs may be deleted, copied, or transposed. Now, is there more or less information in the book before or after the modifications? Now imagine that this book contains the instructions for building an extremely complex machine, in which every piece has to be built with painstaking attention to detail. 

The true complexity involved is even greater, in that the book; our genome, contains the instructions for building a new printing press, and the energy generator to build and run the printing press, and even make the paper and ink that will be used in printing a new copy of the original book. The DNA in our cells is even more complex than this, and it turns out that additional information is encoded at levels above the DNA sequence in chemical modifications on some DNA pieces, and the packing of the DNA. This is much like the way language works, in that information is encoded at multiple levels, namely letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Doesn't all of this sound like an extremely well designed language?

All of this ignores the obvious problem of getting the first bit of DNA and a cell that could replicate the DNA together in a way that they can actually do what our cells currently do. These, and many other reasons are why I do not accept the current scientific consensus that life arose through naturalistic processes and became more complex via evolution. I believe that 6000 years ago, God created the universe, the earth, and all life on it in a single act of creation over 6 literal days. Man sinned and rejected God's rule, and God then sent His son Jesus Christ to be a propitiation for sin. Those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior will live for eternity in Heaven, and those who do not will suffer for eternity in Hell. This is the message given to us by God himself in the Bible.

For more resources and information, please see creation.com.    

Thoughts on Evolution Part 2: Age of the Earth

In the first part, we came to the conclusion that the creation account in Genesis should be taken literally. This of course brings up the age of the earth. Last time I looked, almost any way you add them up, all of the genealogies in the Bible add up to approximately 6000 years. Therefore, as a Bible believing Christian, I have to believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. 

Now, some might rightly wonder, what about all of the scientific studies that claim the oldest rocks on the earth are on the order of 4.5 billion years old (byo). First, almost all of the dating methods start with the assumption that the earth is ancient, and that the various processes producing the elements of interest have never changed. There is no way to truly validate this assumption, nor to verify what the starting conditions in the rocks of interest actually are. 

Second, many of the rock dating methods do not agree with each other, and the magnitude of the disagreement can be huge. In addition, there are many other pieces of evidence that do not appear to agree with the earth being as old as claimed (see here for some). One that I find particularly interesting is that there are certain rocks that contain helium gas. The helium in these rocks is leaking out at a known rate, and there is a theoretical maximum amount they could hold. However, if the rocks from which this helium is escaping were really as old as claimed, then there should be absolutely no helium left in them! (see here).

Some might point to the Grand Canyon as evidence for an old earth. The proposition is that the many layers of rock were laid down slowly over millennia, and that subsequently the river carved out the canyon over many more. The eruption of Mount St. Helens has demonstrated on a smaller scale that the processes both of sedimentary layer deposition and erosion can occur extremely quickly, especially during various catastrophes. What bigger geologic catastrophe do we have recorded for us by the very words of God but that of a worldwide flood?

So, even though we must as Christians consider the Bible as a witness to time, there are actually many other attestations to it's veracity in scientific fields, if one does not start with the presupposition that the earth is much older than is claimed by the Bible.