Tim Gombis comments on why those identified as Neo-Reformed might be more accurately referred to as Neo-Fundamentalist.
First, there’s a strong anti-creation impulse that runs through this culture. I remember hearing one of the above-mentioned people making the flippant remark that Christians shouldn’t worry about stepping on the grass or killing dolphins since it’s all going to burn in the end. That sort of remark represents a deeper depreciation of creation and culture as expressions of worship. Further, one could make the case that John Piper’s call for Christians to delight in God tends to come at the expense of creation rather than in and through creation. While some elements of a Calvinistic soteriology are prominent within this culture, what is lacking is a broader and deeper Reformed worldview. Most crucially, the tendency to emphasize redemption from creation runs counter to the Reformed vision of God’s redemption of creation.
Second, the movement’s militant posture toward the wider culture is manifest also in its lack of genuine engagement with other viewpoints–even evangelical ones–and its inability to enjoy mutually beneficial conversations with other Christian traditions. This may be due to the movement’s exaltation of certain figures as “authoritative voices,” but there’s a strong impulse of suspicion toward fellow Christians who aren’t within the camp. Again, this runs counter to the Reformed vision of seeking to grasp God’s truth wherever it may be found. Further, it fails to heed the call to be “reformed and always reforming,” which happens through intellectual humility, self-reflection, and genuine conversation with others.