You’ll find no disagreement here! In the same way that Romans 9 highlights that the true Israel was never just the physical Israel, the Church is not made by physical procreation alone (although it is no less than that).

Secondly (without attempting to wax eloquent, for it would be a poor attempt), the issue of childbirth is a pretty interesting thematic presence in Scripture. I’m not sure what to make of it yet, but is it not challenging for us to consider the mode of the Savior’s entrance into the world, through none other than childbirth? The very protoevangelium consists of what? Yep, a promise of the birth a child that would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15). Clearly, the “birth” is not the ultimate accomplishment of this promised Seed. The fact that he “would crush the serpent’s head” is what gives us the meat of our Hope. That is the foundation of the Gospel. However, (and this is the driving point of this post) it is by means of this birth that God brings us the ends of the gospel. If Christ were not born as the God-Man, we would have no hope. In a related manner (though understandably distinct), if we were not born as men, we would have no hope of salvation – (of course!) because we would not exist.

As you’ve reminded me often, “God uses means”. And I agree. However, I feel burdened to remind the Church that the means which God uses to set our feet on this earth and (following conversion, death, and resurrection) in Glory, is by physical birth. The same was true for us, our parents, and our children.

One argument that is clear, however, is that we should not put physical multiplication as the center of the spread of the gospel. I don’t think Paul could make the arguments he makes (don’t get married if you are able to withhold; for him it’s better not to be married) if childbearing is at the center.