Given the description of the individual responsibility of Shepherds and the saints, there is no violation of local autonomy because there were no local churches in these towns (Remember the ekklesia is always in the singular in each town). But, even though brethren met in a variety of homes and not necessarily all together in one home, there is no proof that an elder had to be there or that one elder was assigned to each house. These are the influences of the mainstream worship of churches and their gatherings. Among saints of the first century, the shepherds didn’t wait to shepherd until they could all meet at one place. That they did meet at one place on occasions is not debated. Their work involved living among the saints, teaching, warning, and being present to provide an example for them. My preacher friends would disapprove of city-wide elders because they couldn’t rid their minds of the local church organization. If you remove them, you have no autonomy to violate. Also, there was no need for an elder to have a membership list to know who he’s to oversee; there was no full-time preacher to help and support, and no decisions to make regarding church business; there were no buildings to maintain, no letters for support to answer, and no duty rosters to fill out for church services. What were “among him” were souls that were God’s heritage and his responsibility to shepherd. I use to make a big point of using 1 Peter 5:2 where Peter tells the overseers to “feed the flock of God which is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). The effort was to suggest that the elders can only feed the local church flock of which he is a member. It is assumed that “among you” represents a local church organization and that elders of that sort are still authorized, today. Nothing in the text points to this conclusion. This becomes a senseless point that illustrates how we sometimes force conclusions to justify our modern practices.