From a comment made by Francis Berger
To understand the truth of Francis Berger's comment requires making a very basic acknowledgement concerning the world of power and public discourse in 2020 - the recognition of purposive and pervasive global evil; which is an acknowledgment that, apparently, extremely few self-identified Christians are prepared to countenance.
Yet, even among those Christians who do perceive the spiritual war, and realize that evil is now in control of the nations and social institutions; too-many are too-often still deeply-motivated by the desire to find a 'safe path' to salvation.
Even though salvation is always and necessarily rooted in an individual choice to follow Jesus Christ; safe paths to salvation were probably possible, and even normal, at various times and places in the past. One who diligently followed the path of his church was (more or less) 'guaranteed' (or at least highly-likely) to attain salvation - while those who rejected the path were probably/ usually aiming towards the choice of hell.
But such safe paths always amounted to the individual being subordinated to some group who were substantially net-good - a valid church, in essence. The church described the path, assisted those who wanted to follow the path; and it was up to each individual to follow.
This model of salvation assumes that the church is always (or, at least, nearly-always) likely to be the divinely-inspired and -regulated repository of Truth; whereas individuals were assumed to be more highly prone to sin.
In other words - at the minimum - the 'safe path' assumption was that the individual was much-more liable to sin and error than was the church.
Therefore, the 'safe' path was for individuals to follow the path set-out by the church. Anyone who strayed was behaving in an un-safe fashion.
The Big Question is whether this assumption that the individual is more sin-prone than the church holds in our world post-2020?
Does it seem true that institutions, or individuals, are more likely to follow truth?
Are institutions advocating what is safe, while individuals are not?
To ask is to answer:
All institutions - including all major churches - are corruptly-led and (overall) on the side of Satan - which evil strategy is implemented by the post 2020 totalitarian global establishment.
While at least some individuals have chosen to repent and reject corruption, and take the side of God and creation.
All churches on the side of evil; some individuals on the side of good.
Here and now; for an individual to follow a self-discerned path may lead to salvation; but for an individual to follow the church-prescribed path is to reject salvation and embrace hell.
But is 'safety' even a valid goal for Christians?
Was safety the basis of Jesus's life? (Or of the Apostles, the Saints; or anyone regarded as exemplary?)
To ask that is again to answer: obviously not!
(The ones who believed that safety was primary and believed in a safe path - were enemies of Jesus.)
Safety is a snare - now more than ever.
That does not mean that recklessness is a virtue! But that we should strive to be indifferent to safety.
Clearly we ought not to strive to be safe in this mortal world - that path leads to ineffectual birdemic-phobia on the left-hand, and futile prepping against global collapse on the right. But either way; the focus on mortal safety leads to a life of fear, a running-away-from life.
Yet equally we ought not to strive for a safe route to the next world - a safe path to salvation. Why? Because this amounts to a refusal of personal responsibility for our own salvation - which amounts to handing-over our souls to the corrupted and evil institutions of this world.
We need instead to strive to understand what is right, get-on-with-it; then be prepared to acknowledge and repent our errors.
Need to be decisive is thought and action; and humble enough to admit the inevitable sins and failures.
Thus motivated; we shall zig-zag our way to salvation!