While I do believe that Kevin DeYoung is a Godly man and Christian, I have to say, I could not STAND this tiny book which is simply a rose (or in this case legalism) by any other name. My reasons below:
A) It is HORRIBLY written and positively brimming with cheap diction, mind-numbing analogies, and is garishly hokey. At one point he literally writes that "Union with Christ is like being placed on an NFL football team through no talent of your own. Though you didn't earn your way on to the team, now that you wear the jersey you want to play like a real football player." DeYoung, obviously feeling that you just don't understand him then doubles down on such tepid analogizing and offers this horrifying gem: "Union with Christ is like a ten-year-old refusing to be called a 'baby' by his friends. He knows he's not a baby anymore. He's a boy. So he starts acting more grown up." If, only Jesus' parabolic teachings had been so "down-to-earth" as opposed to all those weird stories about "chests of treasures", "prodigal sons" and "mustard seeds!"
B) DeYoung has plenty to say about why a Christian ought not to lead a life of unrepentant sin but seems to offer no definition of what sin IS and WHY it's an abomination. Porn, as you can imagine, is mentioned quite a bit but is simply labeled as falling under the umbrella of sexual immorality and sexual immortality is sin so just avoid it. But WHY? Actually discussing how pornography defiles the imago dei of others, has a tendency to rule over your time and talents, and is literally representative of an industry which is built off of men and women who experienced horrible abuse as children would give the reader a better understanding that God doesn't simply label this or that behavior a sin arbitrarily. In fact, nowhere that I can remember in this book is sin even remotely discussed in the abstract, let alone the doctrine of the fall. The fact that a book on holiness doesn't bother to explain the doctrine of sin is truly remarkable.
C) DeYoung decries the idea of holiness being more than "middle-class family values" while also stressing how holiness is not just what we avoid but what we do. Too bad that he is obsessed with outlining the most absurd "middle-class" peccadilloes in his life as illustrations and also builds his book entirely off of a "negative" conception of holiness (literally every example is something we shouldn't do as opposed to something we should do). For instance, DeYoung discusses how he was offended by a PG-13 film, felt that he and his fiancee maybe did a little too much "making out" when they were "courting", warns us against using the "f-word", and somehow puts this in the same category of Pauline exhortation. Sure, Paul was dealing with congregants who were having sex with their own mother-in-laws, pagans that practiced temple prostitution, truly aggressive prosecution that literally threatened the lives of parishioners, church goers who actually felt they were holier than others due to their supposed spiritual gifts, and even fellow apostles like Peter who believed that some members of the church were impure due to their status as gentiles. Is this to say that DeYoung has no point in calling out these issues? By no means. However, I feel like a holiness based off of "turning off the radio" and averting your eyes when you see a neighbor wearing an "immodest bathing suit" and not laughing at jokes when watching Indiana Jones, and not "getting drunk on Friday night" is the epitome of "Middle-class family values." The problems Paul was EXPLICIT about are problems we still have and they are devastating. Yes, you shouldn't leer at pretty girls, you shouldn't get wasted every weekend (although one wonders what DeYoung's definition of drunk is as he claims in a footnote that while he doesn't believe alcohol is sinful he has never had a taste because it "smells bad"), you shouldn't veg out in front of the TV, but you should also realize that SIN IS DEATH BECAUSE SIN IS DEADLY. Addiction is deadly, deploying abusive language is deadly, treating others as sexual objects is deadly, spending your days in pure idleness is deadly. People are actually murdered, they are actually abused, they are actually consumed by lust and rage. We aren't counted as "creatures of wrath" because we watched something rated R yet for DeYoung it seems that a "real" Christian would never do that so those who are regenerate should really just obsess about the movies they watch and the music they listen to. As Flannery O'Connor put it (a Catholic who somehow believed in Grace by Faith more than many Calvinists) "if you want to avoid Jesus, avoid sin." For me what is key with O'Connor is the term "avoid." DeYoung is ALL about avoiding these highly specific sins but not about embracing that true grace and sharing it as saints who love others.
D) What then does DeYoung say we should do? Why, pray, read the Bible, go to church, and take communion! Now, I actually agree that these are BEAUTIFUL parts of the Christian life which do INDEED bring us into ever greater communion with Jesus but DON'T on their own save us. The problem is DeYoung spends a huge chunk of the book attacking "professed Christians" who "aren't growing in holiness" (too many PG-13 movies, I guess) but think they are because they (you guessed it!) go to church, read the Bible, pray, and take communion. This of course is the game that Lordship Salvationists love to play–no you are NEVER saved by works but by FREE GRACE but if you aren't OBVIOUSLY DISPLAYING HOLINESS than you are NOT SAVED and don't ever assume that GOING TO CHURCH, READING THE BIBLE, PRAYING, AND TAKING THE LORD'S SUPPER MEAN YOU ARE SAVED….BUT YOU BETTER BE READING THE BIBLE, GOING TO CHURCH, AND APPROACHING THE TABLE! Am I against "Lordship Salvation?" Not really, but I think that it's more often than not used to beat people over the head than it is to exhort, edify, or enlighten. For one, I have yet to meet an actual "easy believest" Christian who acts as if they can do whatever they want. Their doctrine might claim that (and that's what they'll tell you if you ask) but in practice they, too, are seeking holiness, are desiring to put sin to death, are growing in faith, and posses a desire to love and display the law. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the "easy believest" position to the core either (I repeat a prayer and then remain a drug dealer doesn’t quite fit) but I also don't agree with this "display-based salvation" which memorizes Hebrews 10:26-27 but seems to disregard all of Romans 7. And how interesting that DeYoung merely mentions Romans 7 is passing but NEVER quotes it! How interesting he left out Paul claiming he is the chief sinner! IT'S ALMOST AS IF PAUL WASN'T "PERFECTLY HOLY LIKE HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN" DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEYOUNG IS CONVINCED WE CAN BE THAT IF WE JUST STOP WATCHING PG-13 MOVIES! Once again, I don't think the basic premise of "Lordship Salvation" is wrong, I'm just not sure how profitable it is when the real gospel misconceptions are seen EVERYDAY by "believers" who truly do feel that it's faith plus works, or truly do feel that they are spiritually superior because they were "slain in the spirit", or truly do feel they are saved because they were blessed with "health and wealth." That seems to be what's keeping "Christians" from understanding and accepting the gospel.
E) The chapter devoted to sexual immorality has a lot of truth in it BUT once again everything is reduced to "middle-class holiness." Yes, you shouldn't have sex before marriage, yes, you shouldn't watch porn, but the chapter seems to feel that a "real" Christian not only would never do this BUT a real Christian would NEVER have done anything worse than this. DeYoung, for instance, doesn't mention abortion ONCE in the book and I suspect that he truly feels a Christian could never actually commit such a sin because I suspect that DeYoung really feels that Christians aren't saved from life to death (from sinfulness to righteousness) but from nastiness to niceness.
F) I've already mentioned this but I feel compelled to repeat that DeYoung SEES THE LAW IN A TOTAL NEGATIVE LIGHT. Yes, he quotes tons of scripture which enjoin us to "love one another" and "serve one another" but while he can come up with dozens of "real-life examples" of what we should avoid, he has no corollary examples of what we should do (apart from reading the Bible, going to church, praying, and taking communion which, by the way, “aren't proof of anything and you're probably still not saved”).
G) Finally, DeYoung waits until the last chapter to discuss what I can't help but feel is the MOST important aspect of sanctification, namely repentance. Yes, he goes on and on and on about shoulds and oughts but doesn't even use the WORD until the very last chapter. And then he offers that typical "Lordship" version of repentance which is totally negative in character–repentance ISN'T feeling bad, it ISN'T feeling guilty, it ISN'T just wanting to change. So, what is it? DeYoung then states that repentance is ACTUALLY feeling not guilty and LOOKING toward God and TURNING from our sin. Is this not just another trap for truly Godly people? You aren't supposed to feel bad so you must look toward God but if you look toward God than you should "grieve over" and "hate your sin" but once again repentance is NOT a feeling and also you can't simply "trust in him" because you have to actually turn from your sin but you can't see repentance as being a "work." By the way, DeYoung anticipates a truly bizarre "attack" against repentance claiming that some readers might find it weird that he ends a book on holiness with repentance suggesting that these readers think repentance and holiness are mutually exclusive. Um, who in the world would think that??? I feel this speaks volumes about DeYoung's theological outlook as I would assume most pastors would think fellow Christians see holiness and repentance as sides of the same coin.
All in all I think Kevin DeYoung has the gospel right (for what little time he spends on it) and I do agree with the basic thesis--Christian life should lead to greater holiness, a Christian life that displays no fruit may be proof of a lack of regeneration, and Jesus does expect us to keep the law. Sadly that message is mired in truly insipid prose, offers no clear definitions of basic concepts like SIN, plays the hyper-Lordship game of Legalism by any other name, conceives of sin as being "bad behavior" like PG-13 films but also being "not bad behavior" like PG-13 films, gives no positive examples of the law but only negative ones, and offers meaningless tautologies to explain repentance.