As I was raised Jehovah's Witness, I never believed in the Trinity. Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike the Way, really did draw their theology from Arianism, a theology with a lengthy history and lots of scholarship behind it. I find it intriguing that Bart Ehrman, the former fundamentalist-turned-Bible-scholar-turned-agnostic (and still a Bible scholar) now believes Arianism best reflects the belief of the first century church. Not that he is the final authority on anything, but I find his position interesting because he has nothing to gain from it. It's just what he believes is the best reflection of the available evidence.
I think Wierwille's presentation was a joke. It was a work of non-scholarship, the intellectual equivalent of a Chick Tract without the subtlety.
Anthony Buzzard's book on the development of the Trinity doctrine is a far superior presentation of Wierwille's position, as was the CES book One God and One Lord (which dishonestly omits Wierwille's book as a source).
As for me, my position is completely irrelevant. I merely believe the Trinitarian position won out, became dominant, and successfully cast all opposing positions as the work of the devil, which is hardly an invitation to honest discourse.
I believe some of the earliest Christians believed Jesus is God. I also believe others did not. I believe these competing claims (together will all the other early church heresies) reflect the fact that the stories of Jesus and his deeds and his teachings and his claims were quite simply made up decades after they allegedly took place. It's actually the best explanation for the intense division in the early church, IMO.