"Academic writing does not exist in order to communicate with a reader. In academia, or at least the part of it that I inhabit, we write, most of the time, not so much for the sake of being read as for the sake of publication." - @AgnesCallard https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/publish-and-perish-agnes-callard/

While Callard is writing specifically about her corner of the academy (philosophy), her claims extend at least to theology, and I'm sure well beyond. I've had situations that mirror hers uncannily: I'll be editing a piece by a theologian and stumble across a paragraph so

jargon-laden that it hides its main claim; I then ask for clarification; the theologian emails back with a perfectly cogent explanation in plainer, clearer, and better prose; I ask him to rewrite the paragraph—and what I get back is the same jargon I wanted to get rid of. It's as

though academics put their prose through a machine that makes it needlessly complex, boring, and opaque to boot. The strange thing is, elegant writing will also get one published! The prose doesn't need to be this way; academics choose to make it this way.

Or, to give an example from philosophy: the Cambridge Companion to Frege is not worthless, exactly. But many essays in it are painfully-written and often unclear. I initially assumed this was because Frege himself was like this (like, e.g., Kant). But I picked Frege up

and found him inviting, clear, cogent, and even funny. The difference was remarkable. I haven't picked up the Cambridge Companion again, but I've been reading Frege ever since.

Addendum: I also wonder how much of this problem in theology can be traced to the desire of many theologians to be more like philosophers.