Given the Christian practices are diversified across time and space the problem raised by many is how can Church keep unity over the globe. Perceiving the question of identity from the social perspective Kathryn Tanner thinks that Christian way of life does not claim for the formation of an alternative society having a separate culture. Early Christians did not replace the educational, economic, familial or political functions served by the Roman institutions with their own. They withdrew only from those practices which seemed to be intimately linked with pagan religious practices. Instead of forming separate societies, Christians functioned like a reference point for its members providing directives of life. Those who shared the same type of references across the different classes of people and different regions constituted together a big family. They did not live in ghettos; they let themselves being influenced by those who lived around them. They borrowed the laws and structures of the same Roman society but gave them a Christian meaning.

The interaction of the early Christians with other religious groups did not jeopardize their identity because they understood identity not in terms of isolation but as a matter of allegiance to certain standards or orientations. To them Christian-ness does not exclude or overrule all that is positive and creative in other communities. Even while they had special rituals like baptism and Eucharist they did not refuse the non-Christian practices unless the latter contradicted the gospel. That is why we see Paul declining to forbid Christians to eat meat dedicated to idols and restrain from forcing the Gentile converts to be circumcised. Even the strong opposition among Christians to the mystery cults did not force them to abandon the water rituals in the Christian ceremonies. However, Christians opposed the divisions like Jew and Greek, rich and poor, free and slave, men and women, etc. which were rampant in the Roman society.

Reflect over the question of identity from the cultural point of view. The philosophy of life that Christianity proposes is universal. It conveys a holistic vision of life which people living in different nations and diverse cultures can practise. This quest for ‘comprehensiveness’ necessitates incorporation of others’ cultural practices. It is by assimilating other cultures Church can maintain its universal frame. Formulating Christian principles from and in the varied civilizations make Christian credentials a composite. The composite nature of Christian identity should not be misunderstood as syncretism. While Church adopts patterns from wider cultural set ups the Christian identity is in no way watered down because the cultural outlooks of others are accepted only through the Christian lens. While borrowing cultural factors Church makes them distinctive in character and usage from the non-Christian world by way of giving to them the Christian meaning. The borrowed materials took on a new sense in Christianity.

Today many argue for a self-containing and self-defining Christian culture because they are afraid that identity of Christianity will be subsumed if it borrows cultural components from elsewhere. In fact this fear is baseless. Identity is more a matter of how than what. It is not so much what cultural materials you use that matters but how do you do with them. The Christian way of life is established in relation with other ways of life, it has to take shape from them, in order to be oneself. Christian identity is relational. The saying that ‘one must be born again receiving baptism’ does not mean to discard totally one’s prior culture. The convert has to give back to his/her culture in a radically different way. The distinctiveness of Christian identity is not formed by drawing a definite boundary with the surrounding cultures but using differently the cultural materials shared with them. In other words, the boundary line between what is Christian and what is not consists in the independent constitution of their respective identities.