Christian Brands - WCG (aka GCI)

The Worldwide Church of God (now known as Grace Communion International in the States)

Origins: America
Began in: 1933 (America), 1963 (UK)
Founder: Herbert Armstrong
Membership:c. 40,000 worldwide
Bible: It's there! Their beliefs state an orthodox 'inspired and infallible' / authoritative position and their quotes are NIV. Starting here they look authentic.

Beliefs:
When I started reading about this group (and the many offshoots) I found that they were the source of that interesting read, 'The Plain Truth'. As I read I found that in 1994, in an attempt to become 'mainstream', the beliefs of the group changed. Here's a bit of a then and now relating to their beliefs:

Trinity: THEN. The doctrine of the Trinity is false, the Father and the Son are two separate and individual Persons and the Holy Spirit is 'an active force emanating from God'.
NOW. They proclaim a more orthodox position on the Trinity.

THEN. Salvation Grace was not sufficient, works were also required (plus tithing and the like). Their beliefs make them way outside of the 'born again' or evangelical (or even moderately orthodox Christian poisition, and . .
NOW. Adopted a more orthodox stance.

Reading some people's views, it appears that (like the Mormons?) the WCG (CGI) leaders have taken a move to become more 'mainstream' and therefore perhaps improve the failing incomes.

Cynical? It is, but I'm not sure on whose part, that of the church or its critics!

A quote which I have found in a few places (source: (The Biblical Evangelist, Nov.-Dec. 1997, p. 7):
"While going through their alleged metamorphous from a worm to a butterfly, the leaders repeatedly changed and modified their statements to please their 'guides.' For example, in the matter of the Trinity, especially as it related to the Holy Spirit, they would agree among themselves as to a position, then go to those whom they were trying to please, saying, 'How is this?' The latter would reply, 'It doesn’t go far enough.' So they would go back to the drawing board and make suggested changes, then return to ask, 'Now what do you think?' That kind of 'doctoring doctrine' is not the stuff of which true Bible believers are made, nor the stuff that may be called orthodox conviction"

On the other hand, there's and interesting read here.

Are they Christian?: On the surface they are, but there's something that I'm rather uneasy about. Looking at the ways that some of the other obviously 'not Christian' groups have realised that their future financial and numerical success depends on portraying themselves as 'Christian' I have some unease (which is shared by the various cult recovery centres) and a little worry that some are all to keen to 'include' when it comes to ecumenical endeavours.

Then again, I'd hate to exclude people but wouldn't want to include because I was scared. Better to protect the sheep and keep the faith is the line I take in these situations - and the test of time will be an aid here I'm sure.

Jury is out but I'd tread rather warily regarding this one.