That’s another topic. But from a high-altitude perspective, consider that Buddhism has probably had an analogous role to that played by Christianity, in East Asian cultures, specifically China, Japan, Korea, and others. (Less so in India from where it was driven out by the Mugal invasion.)
Early Buddhism was very much a renunciate sect, withdrawn from society and culture. But Mahāyāna is much more socially-focussed, indeed that was one of the reasons it was able to spread to China and Japan, which were much less inclined to countenance the ideal of a purely renunciate sect. (For example, Buddhist monasteries in East Asia generally have to grow their own food.)
As regards Buddhist ethics, they are much convergent with Christian ethics than are the underlying doxastic principles. Their beliefs are worlds apart, but in practice they’re very similar. I think Buddhism is a lot less prone to scholasticism, although that’s not always the case, as scholasticism is very much a characteristic of Tibetan and some parts of Theravada Buddhism. But it doesn’t have the same divides between mind and matter, thinking and being, that have bedevilled Western culture. I think that’s due to the character of the Buddha himself. Topic of my earlier thread What the Buddha Didn't Say