He probably doesn't know the others who have done the same, he may not even know the names of more than 2 people in the room, his knowledge of this church is limited but like all transient preachers he simply introduces himself and turns out a cracking sermon, his reputation is secure and those who know him smile with relief. After the service is finished he makes a small amount of small talk while his mind plans the next lot of logistics, he makes encouraging sounds, smiles, and then leaves. He will return home eventually, perhaps if someone questions his time away he will speak of the most famous travelling preacher, let the thought linger and walk away.
The congregation go home, they feel important because they hit the radar of someone who had travelled so far, they may be impressed by the sermon if it went well, they may cringe if it hit a little off centre. The next week they will return to church, continue with the series they were working on, share struggles and watch they little worlds transform with time and effort and baby steps.
I mean no disrespect to those who travel, it would be both churlish and self destructive to do so. They give a lot by being willing to step beyond their comfort zone and reach out beyond the corner shop. They do seem to share a great deal of similarities though and I'm starting to realise how destructive as well as beneficial that can be.
It takes a certain type of faith to travel, some have a deep wisdom, so deep it crinkles in it's humility and grace, but these spiritual wellsprings are the minority. Most have a much more assertive type of faith. They gain strength from the passages where the people were amazed by the authority of Jesus' teaching, they are sort of McDonalds missionaries. They are learned men and women of faith, there learning gives them confidence, that they are 'right' and blessed by what they do. This certainty that they can import their message, modify to the culture a little and produce an evangelical type 'revival' is both encouraging to those who feel forgotten and hugely destructive. They mean nothing sinister, but sometimes I wonder if they highlight the obvious difference in positions, make the rich church appear better than it is, somehow make Christianity less equal.
I also feel sometimes that we forget the long term investment of the apostles biographies. The role of John in his animal skin and river soaked feel in preparing the people. The work of Billy Graham and others have lead many down the pathway of little relationship and loud speakers, but we know from research that the church is built on long term in relationship, that all the seeds that sproud didn't find the good soil.
However, great things come from these learned men. Christians are encouraged, opportunities and travel are opened up to the church, the world is made smaller, funds are raised, churches are supported, networks formed. I heard recently from one such traveller their perception was that English was spoken more in church circles, somehow that makes so much sense to me and yet leaves me quite uneasy.