Ian Paul offers the following assessment criteria.

The are based on significant experience both of preaching and of training others in preaching.

Now, I have great respect for Ian Paul.  But I hope it will not seem too cheeky if I make a couple of comments that are not wholly complimentary.

First, in the accompanying article, he suggests that the characteristics of a ‘good sermon’ transcend ‘the specific details of theological commitments on the part of both preachers and listeners’.  He seems to be saying that a sermon can be regarded as ‘good’ even if the theology it teaches is false.  But, surely, a prime feature of any sermon should be that it conveys truth!

Second, I find it slightly puzzling that he preached this online sermon on ‘How to Interpret the Bible’.  It’s an excellent talk.  But I have difficulty seeing how it can be regarded as a speciment of preaching, using his own criteria.