The central concern of Reformed Christianity was, and is, authority: what is power, who gets to hold it, what are the limitations on that power, what do we do when it is abused. In this, it is unlike the Lutheran Reformation with which it is sometimes associated. Luther was concerned with matters of doctrine. I tend to believe my sincere Lutheran friends who think that these doctrinal issues are all that separate them from Rome; were the Pope to come out tomorrow and announce justification comes through faith alone, the issue would be settled. The more characteristic Reformed concern is with the fact that there's someone in a position to make that assertion in the first place: no one given that kind of authority could possibly use it well.
(Substantively important aside: Reformed Christianity is sometimes referred to as 'Calvinism,' which is a bad term for it: Reformed was a wide movement in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Alsace-Lorraine that eventually had significant inroads in England, France, Poland, and all of central Europe. Calvin was undoubtably the brightest star in that firmament, but he was hardly the only influence. After all, Reformed churches decided against Calvin's preferred communion schedule, despite its centrality to his thought.)
Reformed Christianity is built around the attraction to and the skepticism of charismatic individual leaders. Both elements are important. If you've ever read about Calvin's relationship with Geneva, it should be obvious that it's a two-way street. Even when Calvin was at his most powerful and influential, the city existed as an independent entity that could place serious limitations on his ability to act, and so it went in all the other prominent centers of Reformed.
John Witte, Jr.'s book The Reformation of Rights tracks one important political dimension of this debate, in the question over whether monarchy is the proper form of government. Calvin initially thought so, and argued for something like quietism in the face of persecution as a judgment or test of God. As Witte shows, Calvin eventually eases off this position, and adopts a moderate skepticism about political power, allowing for resistance in some critical cases, which conveniently happen to be outlined in the final three paragraphs of the final edition of the Institutes. The most prominent of Calvin's followers, Beza and Althusius, expand this insight and create modern resistance theory, which then provides the seeds for rebellions in the Netherlands, England, and America.
Bottom line: in a properly constructed historical understanding, Reformed Christianity argues that leadership carries a heavy burden, but also a much higher standard of scrutiny: we can and should expect of our leaders things we don't expect of ourselves; not for nothing does the Bible repeatedly warn about the increased dangers associated with teaching and leadership. It's not surprising if no individual human being can withstand that for their entire lives, and therefore it is the business of the community to be on guard and remove those who have proven themselves unfit to lead.
All of which is to say that I agree with the argument here. This is precisely the wrong attitude:
Both women and children are taught that submission is part of a divine plan that should be embraced joyfully, and that even submitting to abusive men is noble and Christ-like. CLC pastor Joshua Harris quotes 1 Peter on this score, praising slaves who obeyed the masters who beat them as following Jesus’ example. Harris interprets this to mean that all Christians are called to submit, even when “suffering” under “unjust” leadership. Therefore wives are called to resist the “sinful” impulse to “fight back” against or even criticize husbands who misuse their “authority.”...and drawing any implications from that attitude is therefore also wrong. It's not a Christian attitude, and it's not worthy of the proud history of Reformed Christianity on this subject, the one closest to its heart.