I was on a bit of a non-fiction kick, so I finally read through an academic book I bought on a recommendation some years ago. The book was called "Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400" by Ramsay MacMullen and published through Yale. I used to read a lot more academic books than I have been. My love for them isn't lost, though - I always learn a lot and they, too, are fun to read.
The book was relatively short but dense. I'm including a picture of the table of contents to how the overall subject matter was parceled out and presented.
The author goes to great lengths to explore the historical aspects of the growth of the early Christian church. And not just from the more notable converts, such as Constantine himself, while he was emperor of Rome, or Saint Augustine, but also about the people themselves. The body of the church, so to speak, as opposed to solely focusing on the heads of church and, in Constantine's case, state. The notable converts have a lot more thorough historiographical documentation than the more common converts, but the sheer number of common converts and the impact their conversion has on their private lives and society becomes, in turn, notable as well despite being less well-documented.
This was a history book first and not a theological one, though it touches on theological topics by necessity. For example, MacMullen explores the breadth of the impact that conversion to Christianity appears to have had on individuals. These range from being shallow and transient conversions that weren't meaningful, to more transformative ones. I was raised a Christian, but was well into my thirties before I let Jesus become a more integral part of my life. These things can take time and everyone's journey is unique.
MacMullen was also attentive to cultural differences between the present day and the time period being examined. Many of these differences are easy to overlook, but they provide significant context for the environment in which the church was growing. For example, miracles were more readily accepted and were also among the strongest causes of conversion. However, just looking at numbers, if miracles are performed by a Christian evangelist as well as by a pagan one, any conversion would predominantly be from pagan to Christian even though both sides were able to produce signs. This is, in part, due to the population being predominantly pagan to begin with. By being a part of the conversation, Christianity could only benefit in those initial stages as, say, if half of the pagans became Christians, then the religious demographic would have shifted from 100% pagan to half pagan and half Christian.
I was struck buy the author's thoroughness and objectivity. Again, I don't think this is necessarily unique for an academic book printed by an academic press and written by a professor, but it took the subject matter seriously and weighed the evidence available quite systematically and carefully.