Most gospel preachers I know say the teaching to wives to be “keepers at home” in Titus 2:5 should be followed if the family can afford to do so. They say it is wise and best if a wife can stay at home, but if she "has to," she may work a full time job without sinning. But doesn’t this change Titus 2:5’s instruction from a command to a recommendation? Would these same preachers allow the Titus 2:5 instruction to be “chaste” to also be just a wise recommendation?
This is a serious mistake. Either Titus 2:5 has nothing to do at all with whether or not a wife should work full time outside the home, or it is demanding that she not do so. And that is because the phrase “keepers at home” is given as a command, not a recommendation.
"Workers at home" (ASV) means the same as when a lady fills out on a form her occupation as "housewife" or "homemaker" → we all know what that means. Recently a lady taking a phone survey asked me my wife’s occupation. I replied “Carol is a keeper at home … in the Bible sense of that phrase.” I asked her if she knew what I meant by that. She said absolutely, and needed no further explanation. So it seems those who feel no obligation to obey the injunction “keepers at home” know perfectly well what it means, while most of those who do feel an obligation to obey God’s word don’t know what the phrase means. Wonder why?
Situation ethics (“a wife may work if the family cannot afford for her to stay home”) doesn’t work here any more than it would with a wife selling herself as a prostitute because the family can’t afford for her not to. The point?: no amount of money (even during "financial troubles") is worth losing your soul over (Matthew 16:26).