Buzzwords episode 1: "Context"

Today's word: Context

Im not making this long and drawn out, because i'm actually looking more for some feedback from you all, the readers. For those of you who are of faith (or are an Athiest with an opinion) how should we as believers deal with context in the reading/interpretation/application of Scripture? For instance, the Bible claims that women should never Pastor men, etc. though those of us who are more progressive find the reasoning to be a little archaic and not applicable.Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:12, states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (NIV) Many denominations still use this as a reason to subjugate Women, including my own, the Seventh Day Adventist church. Paul also makes claims that Christians should eat unclean meats under certain circumstances, etc.1 Corinthians 10:23-26 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, ²⁶for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." I find it interesting that a large percentage of the Levitical Law is overlooked and quietly brushed aside by us, the "modern" Christian, yet certain Scriptures which perfectly meet our agendas/built in beliefs are held out as bedrock Principals that must never change. Unique to my faith is a lady named Ellen White who many believe was a Prophetess sent to the Church in the last days. Her numerous writings are sometimes used to serve whatever purpose, good or bad, that the reader so chooses. One in particular is the attending of the Movie theater, namely, that a good Christian should avoid it. "Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater." (Messages to Young People, p. 380) "To those who plead for these diversions, we answer, We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance. No Christian would wish to meet death in such a place. No one would wish to be found there when Christ shall come." (Messages to Young People, p. 398) Now anyone who actually takes the time to look into history even for 10 minutes will see that her (EG White's) guidelines were directly predicated on how bad and immoral a place the movie houses of the late 1800s and early 1900s were. One could find smoking, drinking, abuse of narcotics, and prostitution on a regular basis, not the theaters we have today, where you can attend a G rated movie and not even see an Ad for illicit behavior of any kind. Now for the progressives in the faith, this is a no brainer as to how to proceed in these days when it comes to watching movies. Considering anything you can see in the movies and worse can be found on your home computer or tv, coupled with the notable changes to the environment inside a movie theater compared to Mrs. White's day, one can make the statement that the principle of what mrs. White states, "guarding the avenues of your mind" and not the literal "don't go to movie theaters" should be applied here. Yet a sizable amount of believers in the SDA faith choose to stick to Mrs. White's literal instructions. So my question again: how do we as believers deal with context in the Bible, and specifically for those who read and follow extra-Biblical sources, how do you deal with context? Or a more telling question, DO you deal with context? Or are you a literal reader and believer of the Scriptures? PLEASE comment and further this discussion, I am extremely interested to here what you think.

Church stance vs. parishioner life decisions. Do this, even if it kills you?

I was reading this article on CNN concerning the Pope's visit to Africa, specifically Cameroon. The Catholic church has a universal ban on Condoms because they believe sex is for procreation and, along with abortion, condoms are "artificial contraception", a "clear moral prohibition."

This has sparked some anger in Africa, especially in the Sub-Sahara region where AIDS and HIV is more prevalent then anywhere else on Earth. The Pope has repeatedly made statements that : "You can't resolve it (AIDS/HIV) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

I am a bit confused by this statement. Does it increase the problem because it gives people a somewhat false sense of security when having sex that they are completely protected from HIV? Sure, Condoms are only effective ~90% of the time against pregnancy, so it would beg to reason that it would be less then 100% effective at containing and stopping the transmission of AIDS. However, I find it extremely interesting and somewhat disturbing that in an area as hard hit as this, the Pope has not only upheld what he has said previously, but has made the statement that condoms only make it worse? From a religious standpoint, I completely see where the Catholic church is coming from. They preach against not only pre-marital sex, but against contraception because they believe God wants us to procreate, but from a social and scientific perspective, it seems asinine to tell people in the hardest hit portions of the world by AIDS not to protect themselves even if they will probably die from there religious decision? It becomes less about morals and more about self preservation in my opinion. Someone from that region could do everything right, marry a good woman, etc. and still die from having unprotected sex with his wife. In this environment, a person could be a virgin and still be born with HIV, nullifying abstinence's protections for them against AIDS. Sadly, there is little balance on this issue when it comes to the "church", not even including Catholics. These are the standards and morals, and even if they do die from the HIV/AIDS rampaging through the region, they were "living right" and holding to what they believe in. A bigger issue here is that most denominations will keep mum about protecting yourself in situations such as this because as far as they are concerned, parishioners shouldn't be engaging in pre-marital sex to begin with. Abstinence is still the teachings of the day, with little or no adaptation to help or minister to those who have "already taken the plunge." I am honestly conflicted on this personally, because I know the counter argument here is that if the church begins to say "well, you should be abstinent until you are married, but in case you end up having a better prom night then you expected, be sure and wear a condom" the entire strength of message and evangelism falls apart, or at the very least is weakened. The last thing a religious instution or denomination wants to do is show vacillation in where it stands or allow a topic as important as this to be open to interpretation, so they put up the concrete barrier of abstinence and abstinence alone. I honestly don't know how the church should deal with this, and am glad I am not in a position where I am required to figure out a solution, but, I do see, that at the expense of the church standing firm on this, many young people are dying  and suffering due to not being better educated and helped by their church family. These topics should be discussed openly within the church, not brushed under a rug. I would think that in topics such as this, the church would want to put forth Biblical (or extrabiblical counsel) to help the youth in this serious issue within their lives. I strongly feel that in my denomination (SDA) these topics will HAVE to be dealt with, and I have come to the realization that the current generation in power will not be the ones to do it. It will have to be my generation. Thanks for reading.