Why the TNIV Is Not a Feminist Translation
You need to read Wayne's entire post to see his argument, but let me cut to the chase and give you his conclusion. That should be enough to urge you to see for yourself how he got there:
The TNIV and ESV both make it clear that Jesus was a male, not some androgynous human. Both versions refer to God with masculine pronouns. Both versions retain the biblical language text wording of God the Father, rather than as generic God the Parent.
As far as I know, those who accuse the TNIV of being a feminist translation or being influenced by feminism cannot support that claim from how passages traditionally used to teach complementarianism are worded. The TNIV is an accurate translation and does not deserve the criticism it has received from its opponents. It does not deserve to be boycotted by Christian booksellers who seem to believe its critics rather than being Bereans (Acts 17:11) who study the Bible (or any translation of it) carefully for themselves to find out if what people claim about it are true or not.
Well said, Wayne.
For myself--a fairly conservative, complementarian, Southern Baptist--I have found the TNIV to be a translation extremely faithful to the original language texts. As I have said before, the TNIV is essentially a conservative, evangelical translation. The issue of gender inclusiveness/accuracy or even the method of dynamic equivalency is not a conservative/liberal issue or even a complementarian/egalitarian issue. Rather it is a difference in translation methodology. And there were certainly complementarians on the TNIV committee including Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke among others. Further, this is a translation endorsed by scholars such as D. A. Carson, John Stott, and Timothy George and many more. I highly recommend that Christians everywhere, take a look at the TNIV for themselves.