I was just thinking about that scripture, 2 John 9-11, if I remember correctly. Jehovah's Witnesses use it to justify their shunning of members who have been expelled. A thought just occurred to me about it. "Never receive him into your homes," is what verse 10 says. But wait--at that time, there were no religious buildings for Christians--no churches, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I can recall reading indicated that Christians were meeting in people's homes. So if such a person was never to be received into "your homes", then doesn't that mean he or she would be barred from all meetings? Not sure if there's any proof that it worked that way in the first century, but then, just like Jon Snow, I know nothing.
Take from it what you will, I may be wrong here. But if I am right in how I understand this, then how can the JW policy on reinstatement be the correct one, when they do not, in fact, bar expelled persons from their meetings? Do I think they should? In my case, it's more a matter of why I would care one way or the other really; I don't care. It certainly would be less shameful if you didn't have to look upon the people who were shunning you twice every week for at least a year. But then there'd be no exposure to the information at meetings. (And less of the emotional control that manipulates people to return, the constant guilt and maybe even talks jabbing at you personally whether intended or not [and usually it is].) Really, that's all it's about. It's not like they can monitor your behavior once you leave the Kingdom Hall parking lot, so meeting attendance isn't really proof of anything about your character; after all, you could well have been attending regularly before the expulsion occurred, right?
Maybe one of you has researched this issue better than I have and can point to WTS statements on that particular problem or relevant historical data. Not planning to use this info to convince JWs of anything, just batting the issue around out of mere curiosity.