I am not comfortable with “ruling elders” as Baptist ecclesiology. I am comfortable with “leading elders.” However, a case could be made that part of the “church tradition” among some Southern Baptists is that Deacons served very much as leading elders. In recent years however, there has been a concerted effort by churches to return the Deacon to the role of “servant.” This has, in some cases left a void of leadership that many are now finding filled by some form of “elder” leadership.
At the church I serve as a volunteer, I am a pastor/elder and we serve as a plurality of elders. We see that there are two church offices—pastor/elder and deacon. We think that there are some pastors/elders who teach and some who do not. In the near future, our church may add some pastor/elders to our leadership who do not preach.
But, I am a congregationalist. I think that churches need to choose their leaders—and ruling elders tend not to do that. Ruling elders tend to be a self perpetuating board. I think that the final seat of authority, under the Lordship of Christ, is the congregation. They choose their leaders under the Lordship of Christ.
Also as a congregationalist, I think churches can choose their leadership structure. I think that the roles of pastors and deacons are biblically described and prescribed, so they should exist. I don't really care what people call them, but the roles and offices do exist and they are biblical. Many great SBC churches have pastors/elders/deacons, pastor/administrative team/church council/deacons, etc. Names are less important than roles and offices.