In this book, Thomas A. Robinson focuses on two things: first, “the weaknesses and inadequacies of the urban thesis;” and second, which necessarily follows the first, “how important the rural element is for an adequate reconstruction of the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire” (12). Regarding his first point—what is the urban thesis and its assumptions Robinson seeks to dismantle? In the field of early Christianity, the urban thesis—proposed and promulgated by the three influential scholars: Wayne Meeks, Ramsey MacMullen, and Rodney Stark—presents Christianity as an urban phenomenon, and its structures and concerns reflected that context. This characterization draws a stark dichotomy between the urban (Christian) and the rural (pagan). This urban thesis feeds upon the current consensus on the number of Christians around the year 300 CE, just before the reign of Constantine, that is, about six million in an empire of sixty million, comprising 10% of the population. Robinson fundamentally questions whether historians “must” or “can count accurately” the population of the Roman Empire, not to mention that of its subgroups such as Jews or Christians (3, 4). Pointing to a wide range of estimates (from forty million to one hundred twenty million), the problem with any of the estimates is that they are only guesses and impressions at best, and they are based on modern arbitrary methods in the absence of any reliable sources or measures. However, an even more insurmountable problem with the urban thesis rises when most of the empire's population was, in fact, rural (which is agreed by all scholars). Say that if 10% of the empire was urban (held by many), and Christians, “at 10% of the empire, were themselves largely urban, Christians would have made up the entire population of all urban areas by the year 300 C.E.” (18). Even with a higher rate of urbanization of 20%, which itself is extremely generous, Christians (at the same 10% of the empire) “would have made up half the population of all cities of the empire” (18). Both possibilities, however, are entirely unlikely. On the other hand, if Christians made up of only 10% of the urban population (or even 20%), and if they were primarily urban throughout the empire, then Christians would have constituted only 1% to 4% of the imperial population in the year 300, a scenario perhaps more problematic and hardly supported by the scholars in the field (18–19). Due to this mathematical impossibility, Robinson here contends that “only under a rural scenario of some sort can the total population of Christians in the empire number several million without swamping the cities with Christians” (19; cf. 40).

How then does Robinson argue for his second point—a substantial rural element in the church prior to 300 CE? Robinson first seeks to break down the traditional rural/urban dichotomy by showing that the interchange between city and countryside was frequent and extensive; a sizeable portion of farmers lived in cities and the countryside supplied cities with their food supplies, manufactured goods, and specialized labors for the urban markets, as well as immigrants to keep urban population stable (chapter 5). He then tries to remove supposed barriers to Christian success in the countryside by first challenging Meek's characterization of the urban character of Paul's mission. Paul's missional vision was rather regional (more than urban), and more importantly, Jesus's mission in the gospels, which was both urban and rural, should serve as a balance to the Paul's supposed urban mission (98). Regarding the supposed conservatism of the countryside and linguistic barriers as obstacles to Christian mission (chapter 6), Robinson highlights the complexity of the countryside and points out the conservatism of the urban elite as a more serious element in the resistance of Christianity. In fact, the second- and third-century early Christian sources themselves exhibit evidence for Christian use of the various rural vernaculars beyond Greek and Latin, such as Aramaic, Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian, both in oral liturgical and non-liturgical contexts, with widespread bilingualism especially in Phrygia, Egypt, and North Africa. Indeed, these early Christian writings (for example, those by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen) and Roman writings (for example, Pliny's letters) themselves, all prior to 250 CE, take for granted a Christian presence in and spread into the countryside, even confirming and defending the rustic character of the Christian congregation (chapter 7). For example, in Phrygia, while Montanism is the region's best-known evidence for Christianity's second-century presence in the small towns, the mention of two anti-Montanist bishops in the countryside by Eusebius suggests “the presence of rural, non-Montanist Christians prior to Montanism” (154). In Egypt, Eusebius's account of the conflict between Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (248–264/5) and a village bishop named Nepos, who had taught a form of millennialism that was influential in the rural Arsinoë area, points to much earlier presence of Christianity in rural Egypt; and the story of Antony and his parents indicates the presence of rural ascetic and non-ascetic forms of Christianity prior to 250 CE, going against the notion that rural Christianity only took off in Egypt at the end of fourth century with the rise of Coptic monasticism. Robinson's point is not that Christian mission into the countryside was massive, but that given the empire's overwhelming rural orientation (80–90%), it would take only few rural Christians to make the Christian church as rural as it was urban, at least in terms of raw numbers (177); thus, it is far more likely the church had a more natural presence in the countryside early and was more rustic in its complexion and character than the dominant urban thesis allows while cities were more Christianized than the countryside.

Robinson is successful in challenging what he considers as a “defective consensus” of the urban thesis (208) by pointing out its practical ramification in the social and territorial make-up of Christianity and posing a serious rethinking of early Christian character and portrait in the Roman world while his dismantling it is yet to be assessed.