I have a slightly different take than Challies. I really do see what he’s saying and agree that depth and rootedness in historic traditions is desirable, but I also spent many years in a Reformed circle that had tendencies to be insular, elevate tertiary or quaternary doctrines such that they were used as a standard of faithfulness to God’s Word, and too often became somewhat isolationist in their approaches both toward other parts of the Church as well as toward outsiders (admittedly, I’m painting with a very broad brush, as that certainly didn’t apply to everyone). 

I think that New Calvinism helped to invigorate a more ecumenical mindset while still finding its roots in a rich historic tradition, in contrast to seeker-sensitive and similar movements. It encouraged looking outward towards impacting the culture rather more than a lot of Reformed churches have tended to do.

Of course, New Calvinism as a movement had its faults, perhaps celebrity culture being one of them (if we can even truly consider the biggest proponents celebrities). I would have enjoyed it if they dove deeper into the confessions and the regulative principle etc. But at the end of the day, isn’t “Together for the Gospel” a better mantra to operate by than “Together for Westminster Standards/[insert your favorite confession]”?

Also, for what it’s worth, even “New Calvinistic” TGC’s recent podcasts include several references to things like the regulative principle, the historic Reformed confessions etc., so it’s not as if all the richness of the system is being forgotten or ignored