As we’ve explained elsewhere, Christianity is somewhat unique in the way it deals with its Revelation, at times displaying a confusion of the esoteric and exoteric, and straddling the fence when it comes to the truths it chooses to emphasize, whereas other traditions seem to have staked out their claims and developed themselves within these limits. Part of this is due to the inherent versatility and mobility of the Christian Revelation, which, much like Buddhism, is capable of adaptation and re-adaption based on time and place and people. This means that when we come to the question of caste, we find that although the Gospel itself is quite egalitarian in its emphasis, Christianity is nonetheless capable of developing a caste-based world and thriving within it. The medieval period, and feudalism in particular, presents itself as a de facto caste system, if not a doctrinal one, as in Hinduism. What we can take from this is that Christian doctrine does not possess a distinctly social component, or what in Islam is the Sharia law. This is what makes it capable of adaptation to a diversity of human worlds and capable of serving as a means of grace for a broad spectrum of human types, but it also means that questions of social application are not clearly defined and therefore easily perverted or ignored depending on the situation.