W.B. Moore has responded to several writings on the doctrine of Theotokos (including mine here) by arguing that it is better to use the term Christotokos than Theotokos because “most people will miss the nuances involved in its use” (see here). While I understand his concern (like I understand that of Nestorious) it does not follow that we should abandon a pivitol doctrine because it may be misunderstood.
Moore says that most people understand Theotokos to include the following:
1) Jesus is God
2) Mary gave birth to Jesus.
3) Mary existed before time to give birth to God.
4) The divine person of God the Son was created when Mary gave birth.
5) One should pray to Mary who, being the mother of Christ, will interceed with Christ for man. After all, what son doesn’t want to do what his mother asks?
In response I think that people would reach points #3, #4 and #5 only if whoever doing the teaching is completely ignorant of what it means to call Mary the “God-bearer” or if there is intention to subvert the doctrine by claiming that it teaches that which it does not teach.
We argue for Mary as God-bearer because we believe Jesus is one person with two natures. We do not believe he is two persons (one divine, one human). To call Mary Christ-bearer is to insinuate that somehow Jesus was born human in a way that is disconnected from his deity. While it is understood Mary contributed the human nature what was born in her is no One other than God Himself.
If we begin moving down the pathway of teaching people doctrines we find easiest we will move the direction of the Jehovah’s Witnesses/Arians with the incarnation or the Oneness Pentecostals/Modalist/Sabellians with the Godhead. Yes, we need to be cautious as we teach the Christian faith but we don’t need to change it to make it sensible. Sometimes Christianity claims to be true what senses say is false.
the archives near Emmaus 
I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church. I went to Catechism. Terms are often bandied about without explanation. Case in point: “Hail Mary, Mother of God”…. While theologians will understand because they have been formally taught or taken the time to learn, I dont believe the majority understand the actual meaning of the term.
WB,
I was raised in Oneness Pentecostal circles where the doctrine of the Trinity is abandoned by many due to what is perceived to be unnecessary complexity. While I am sure there are many priest in the Roman church who fail to teach what this doctrine means I have been on the other end of things where abandoning the terminology of historical theological debates has caused as much if not more problems that using it under the assumption everyone understands.
BRian,
As I wrote in the comment section on my post, I prefer to use Biblical language where possible. I think it makes things much clearer, usually (although sometimes not). I try to teach people how the word of God applies practically in their lives. That *term* (not its definition) makes it harder, rather than easier, I think.
Most people are not theologians and never want to be. We need to choose language which is clear and understandable when defining positions. And perhaps Joel had it right in that the original language was Greek, and perhaps it was easier to understand the concept in Greek. *shrug* I dont know.
I am sure it was much easier to understand for those who were Greek speaking Christians. And maybe the ‘Theotokos’ doctrine is not something that needs to be discussed right away. But as someone years down the road wants to connect with the historocity of his/her faith it is important to show them what our forefathers have discussed, debated, and died for.
I agree, with many people, the term is not one which needs to be discussed while they are young in the faith. But for someone coming from a traditin where that phrase is commonly used, I think it is imperative to discuss its meaning and try to dispell any misconceptions.
Hey Brian and WB,
I argued in favor of Theoktos, and I am officially still a Baptist. Mary did bear God, the Holy Spirit in her womb.
http://politicaljesus.com/2010/01/03/mythbustvirginbirth/
Agreed, I think it is very important to discuss what this really means with Catholics, Orthodox, and others who may hear the term as a common part of the liturgy but who are unaware of its meaning. This is true of Catholic and Orthodox leaders as well as Protestants who are now leading those who are formerly from those branches of Christianity. What I do not think is an option is to intentionally use language that is “simple” for the sake of avoiding confusion, especially if that language historically has been associated with a prominant heresy.
I can see your point. But I tend to use simple language in my everyday speech. I KNOW the big 2 dollar words, but I choose to use the more common ones. Its easier and generally leads to less confusion.
The solution to the problem is just explain the term when we use it. But how many people use theotokos in casual conversation anyway? 😉 And the problem I have with using just biblical language is that all of the Christological/Trinitarian/Soteriological controversies throughout church history were argued based on the language of Scripture. It took going outside of Scripture to explain the points that everyone was arguing.
BTW, I commented on a young man’s blog a few weeks back that are somewhat related to the topic of discussion.
Rod,
A Baptist! Gasp! 🙂
God has our family at a Baptist church at the moment.
Nick,
This is so very true. Everyone “quotes” the Bible and argues that their theological views are closer to the language of the Scriptures. There are many verses that could lead us to be Arian, or Nestorian, or Sabellian, or Jehovah’s Witness, or Oneness Pentecostal. But it is about more than merely quoting verses for proof texting cannot be theologizing.
wb,
Well, of course, in everyday speech I don’t talk to people about ‘Theotokos’. But what is talked about at the bus stop is not necessarily what is talked about when the church is being taught doctrine.
Brian,
Too true.
Nick,
Yes, non-bibilical language was needed to come to agreement of some doctrinal positions. Sometimes such language is very helpful in explaining the doctrine. But sometimes it creates more confusion than it helps alleviate (of course, sometimes restricting oneself to the Bible does also).
Perhaps it is because part of my job is to identify deficiencies in people’s understandings and explanations of their needs and complaints, but I think we need to use the simplest language possible to explain any given doctrine – not dumb it down, but simplify where possible.
We NEED to be able to explain any doctrine using what is in the Bible. Any doctrine that can not be explained using the Bible is not understood sufficiently or is wrong.
In the Orthodox vespers that I have attended, there have been many mentions of theotokos – not less than three times. From what I understand, those who come into the Orthodox faith go through a class (usually called an Inquirer’s Class) that covers doctrine, among other things (this would be similar to the RCIA that adult converts to Roman Catholicism go through). The Orthodox church I’m familiar with uses a set of books by Thomas Hopko in which the theotokos debate is mentioned and also explained in some detail (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=138). So I think converts to Orthodoxy have some degree of understanding about theotokos. This, of course, says nothing about those who are born into and raised in Orthodoxy, but my guess is that they likely know something about it.
JohnDave,
Thanks for that link. I like its dexcription of the history involved from the eastern perspective.