Speakers are not necessarily good writers and writers are not necessarily good speakers. The apostle Paul was evidently a good writer but not a good speaker (2 Cor 10:10); Moses was a good writer but somewhat diffident about speaking (Exod 4:10). This is not to deny inspiration, but just to observe something about the human dynamics. The problem here is that good speakers need good content, and this is why, in the world, a good speaker will often use a speech writer.
The community is a social organisation and speaking dominates its formal structures: fraternals, exhortations, bible classes, and lectures. Most meetings are a one-to-many speaking-listening arrangement. Oratory is therefore very important in the community; if you are good at oratory, then you will get asked to speak far and wide. As an orator you get to know other orators and a kind of elite is created in which orators recommend each other and the silent many have to continually listen to a small group of good speakers.
The structure is inherited from the cultural origins of the community as this system is common in the churches. The question is this: is the dominance of a one-to-many speaking structure a good thing? There is obviously nothing wrong with one-to-many speaking, we can cite biblical precedent; the question is whether the dominance of this structure is damaging to the community.
It is not too difficult to think of disadvantages to the current situation but there is no need to do this now. More importantly, at congregation (the memorial meeting), there is biblical precedent for many-to-many:
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues… But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all… How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying… If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret… Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge… For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted… 1 Cor 14:23-31 (KJV)
Although this passage presumes the exercise of the spirit gifts, there is a pattern here for the main ecclesial meeting that involves the many brethren rather than the one brother. The ‘one-speaker’ system is derived from the churches and their preference for priests, vicars and pastors. The biblical model for congregation is for a many-to-many style (or perhaps a ‘few-to-many’). This facilitates the sharing of the knowledge of Jesus Christ among equals and helps to avoid the rather human tendency to elevate the orators amongst us.
The orator system militates against the spirit of coming together and spiritual sharing that is essential for growth in Christ, and it does so precisely because it requires a very passive audience week after week. The main meeting of the ecclesia should therefore be one in which the orator system is not commonplace. This may be difficult for the speakers in the community to accept but it is an important change that needs to be considered in the ecclesias. This system would act as a counter-balance to the one-to-many occasions such as large fraternals or Bible schools. Good speakers are a tremendous blessing, although they may not be good writers; their place is the bigger occasion. The weekly day-to-day work of spiritual sharing needs the many-to-many model.
What is a Bible Student?