Are you a "good" theologian?
How do you read the text (the Bible)?
Each text can be read on its own without being harmonized with other texts or being reduced to one particular meaning. Even though all texts, written or living texts (life), are inter-textual, it does not mean that all texts can be mingled without careful discernment. An example helps. If the difficulties of innocent human suffering or problem of theodicy is a focus of preaching with a text chosen from the book of Job, by and large, preaching should stay with that particular concerns that people need to tackle. If a preacher adds a Jesus-talk in the middle of a sermon saying, "Jesus suffered for you and your tears will be wiped out eventually," he or she suddenly confuses listeners (at least for me) because the main issue of theodicy or innocent suffering in Job is lost. In other words, there must be tensions intact throughout, thorny issues regarding God's character or innocent human suffering without giving an easy answer. Obviously, Jesus did not remove suffering of people today. Jesus' suffering on a cross did not eliminate suffering of people today. But still preachers do the same preaching again and over again. I guess people in the pew listen to the same sermon again and over again. Then, what? Does this help? Is this sermon a panacea for all kinds of disease? Or is it opium that gives people oblivion about their lives?
Do you know basic skills of preaching?
Whichever sermon we hear, we expect something of a life lesson or a moral challenge, or some sort of spiritual comfort or encouragement. This means the entire sermon needs to get focused on a particular need or issue. But the real sermon is a far cry from this. Some preachers are almost writing a book when preaching. I mean he or she uses big theological vocabularies without clarity or elaboration, much less with real life connection. Some are explaining about theological doctrines without life lessons in real life contexts that the audience needs to tackle. Others are doing a very good job in the beginning; there is a nice introduction with possible topics and thesis promised. However, soon my expectation collapses when the preacher suddenly incorporates a particular view of atonement when talking about innocent suffering of humanity (as mentioned before). I still don't know how Job's suffering is related to Jesus'. There can be a connection between them. But there must be a clear explanation about that. Otherwise, that is a moment of anticlimax.
*Disclaimers: My observation here is personal. Don't take offense if you disagree with me.