A Complementarian Agenda in TNIV?
The New International Version (NIV) is notorious for using the word "man" in its translation when the original Greek or Hebrew has no noun, only an adjective or an indefinite pronoun. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV reads "If a man will not work, he shall not eat", where the only Greek word translated as "man" is the indefinite (and entirely gender generic) pronoun tis "anyone". Now I don't think the NIV translators intended that this should be understood as referring to men rather than women, an exegesis which cannot be defended from the Greek text, for they commonly use "man" and "he" in a gender generic sense. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that many readers have misunderstood this as applying only to men and not to women.
A major aim of the changes made in Today's New International Version (TNIV) was to avoid the danger of such misunderstandings. I don't think anyone can complain about TNIV's rendering of 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "Anyone who is unwilling to work shall not eat." This is after all closer to KJV's "if any would not work, neither should he eat", and it avoids any possible misunderstanding that this applies only to males.
However, TNIV does not always make such changes. For example, in Titus 1:6 TNIV has "a man whose children believe", in this phrase identical to NIV. But there is no word here to be translated "man"; the Greek is tekna ekhōn pista, literally "having believing children", or perhaps the KJV rendering "having faithful children".
How do the TNIV translators justify their version? They cannot do so on the basis that the NIV translators might have done, that "man" is to be understood in its gender generic sense. It seems clear that the TNIV translators are trying to insert into the text here a teaching that elders must be male, at a point where this cannot in any way be justified by the Greek. (I assume that they have not simply kept the NIV rendering by an oversight!)
So how can they justify this? Well, it is true that the word anēr "man, husband" appears in the immediately preceding phrase, translated "the husband of but one wife" in NIV and "faithful to his wife" in TNIV, but in this context the meaning clearly more like "husband" than "man". It is clear that the TNIV translators disagree with my exegesis of this phrase as not intended to restrict eldership to males. Apparently they judge that Paul was assuming that the elders that Titus would appoint were male. Maybe he was. But the point he was making here was surely not that elders must be male, rather that they must be faithful in marriage. The TNIV translators have no business changing what may have been Paul's culturally based assumption into an apparently explicit teaching that the elder must be a man, male.
So here we have the TNIV, which has been called "the feminist edition" by JI Packer and according to Peter Jones "represents an 'ideologically egalitarian' agenda" (both as reported by Michael Marlowe), specifically teaching the complementarian position on women elders in a place where this is not justified by the Greek text. If there is any agenda here, it is not feminist or egalitarian, but towards complementarianism.