aq,
Ignoring the flawed content, your writing is not concise. It is verbose. That makes your readers pause either to translate or leading them to stop reading. Your first paragraph is an example.
You wrote:
The analysis of
sectarianism has topical relevance today, and increasingly so. However, the
scarcity and insignificance of the responses to the challenge of sectarianism
create the impression as if, for some unknown reason, the historical churches
would avoid this challenge. They usually satisfy themselves with emphasizing
the dangers of sectarianism and the sweeping condemnation of sects - which,
although often true, does not delve into the depths of the phenomenon; and does
not help those who it is intended for to understand; or they point to the
heretical nature of individual sects, the distortions in their teachings, their
lack of catholicity, and usually do not omit the self-critical observation that
in terms of trust and faith, community, and devotion, we too can learn a lot from
them. However, this is far too little. The present study does not wish to deal
with doctrinal issues or the specifics of individual sects, but restricts
itself solely to a general phenomenological description of sectarianism,
naturally revealing the appropriate causes and drawing conclusions.
What you intend
is:
An analytical
approach to “sectarianism” is increasingly relevant. Traditional churches avoid
this, satisfied with emphasizing perceived dangers of newer, untraditional
groups, avoiding in-depth consideration of the causes and content of
alternative beliefs. Describing newer systems as heretical fails; that simply
means “we don’t agree with them” and ignores what we can learn from them.
[Insert quotation from Hilaire Belloc: The Great Heresies or from Schulz
and de Vienne: Separate Identity to that effect. A BRIEF
quotation.]
This essay does not consider doctrinal issues but presents
only a general study of “sectarianism,” its causes, and the author’s
conclusions.
Note: Sociologists might be pleased with the phrase “a
general phenomenological description,” but it is nearly meaningless. It’s an “insider”
phrase that is best translated into plain English.
If you keep your first sentence (“The analysis of sectarianism has topical relevance today, and
increasingly so.”) drop the comma. It’s misplaced.