I’m gonna agree a bit with you here. We’re not all tasked to be theologians.
However, there are some basics that need to be orthodox and clearly taught since “ the best thing to safeguard the correct understanding of Christ is good teaching.”
We’re having a theological discussion here, one about correct teaching. We teach that if you have a problem acknowledging Mary as Theotokus, this quite likely concerns a problem of understanding about Christ.
We’re seeing how this comes out here on this thread.
Christology is at the root of all theology. How you understand Christology determines just about everything else.
The Liberal Protestants seem to have graduated from Nestorianism and Apollinarianism into full-blown Arianism or Modalism, for example.
What we have seen on this thread is warmed over Nestorianism and Apollinarianism.
Where, for example, does it say in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is God as Macedonius argued?
Or where does it say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate, distinct persons like Sabellius argued against in favor of Modalism?
And with all due respect, I'm going to disagree that the title given Mary has anything to do with understanding about Christ.
Mary was given no such title in Scripture. That is a man-made construct. Her title is not critical to understanding the Incarnation.
Correct teaching about Jesus and who He was can be imparted regardless of the title given to His mother.
The only thing relevant is that the mother of the Messiah be a virgin. That is the ONLY criteria necessary according to Scripture. It could have been any virgin Jewish girl. Mary just happened to fit the bill.