Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

First, allow me to thank my worthy opponent for introducing this debate challenge and for inviting me to the table. My opponent was fairly strict about picking an opponent who would be able to discuss this topic ably, so I consider it an honor that he has invited me in. I don't agree with my opponent that this has to be a "Christian" debate particularly (even less that it should be someone who is an "evangelical"), as I believe anyone knowledgeable about the topic could make a worthy adversary, but, as I meet those criteria, I hope I can rise to the occasion and provide good food for thought (whether I end up winning or not). I look forward to an engaging discussion! As our readers might know, my opponent and I already have begun our discussion in the comments section of this debate. Feel free to look those over, as I believe they shed light on how we are approaching this topic. I'll go ahead and open this round with a general statement. I believe the way my opponent has phrased this debate is somewhat vague, but he and I have agreed that we, indeed, do disagree about this topic, so we have agreed to engage. My premise is as follows: I believe the church has not "replaced" Israel so much as it is a fulfillment of what God called Israel to do in the first place. So, insofar as the church has taken on the mantle of God's mission in the world, I would go along with the phrasing that the church has "replaced" Israel...to the extent Israel has NOT fulfilled God's mission. Allow me to explain further. I believe when God called Abraham (Gen 12) to become a "father of a great nation", so to speak, that God never intended for that to mean a "father of a great nation-state...with a government, military, and so on...". I believe the notion of a nation-state was what many of Abraham's descendants ended up believing in and expecting, but I believe that was a misunderstanding of God's plan. I believe much of the Bible is not only an account of God's plan and dealings with humans, but also is an account of how we have continually misunderstood and abused God's plan, reinterpreting it for our own selfish purposes. I believe God could have called any group of people, as it were, to be his servants of love in the world. It could have been one person, one group, many groups, or whatever. That a PARTICULAR group came to enter into covenant with God, to me, is incidental. I believe God likely called a lot of folks to enter into covenant with him, but it so happens that Abraham responded positively, and so was "chosen" to rise to the challenge. God likely called several people to pastor the church where I'm presently pastor. I am no more special than anyone else (and I'm not sure I have better skills than anyone else)...but it turns out that this present pastorate has proven to be a good fit, and so I believe he "called" me and my church to partner at least for a time. But there is nothing that says someone else couldn't have fulfilled the spot, or that I couldn't have taken a church elsewhere. These factors are incidental, in other words. Likewise, God and Abraham hooked up, but it could have been anyone who was willing to follow God's plan. And, likewise, the fact that Israel may have misunderstood or abused God's plan is incidental. That is, I believe whoever entered God's plan likely would have failed to live up to it. Israel has no monopoly on falling short. I believe the focus on Israel (AS A NATION) is, to me, not only incidental, but a misguided consequence of how people misunderstood and abused God's plan. This has nothing to do with anti-semitism. The misunderstanding could have involved anyone. Indeed, I believe everyone participates in this misunderstanding to one degree or other, and that is why Paul says in Romans that EVERYONE (not just Jews) has "fallen short of the glory of God." (Rm 3:23) So God wanted a person or group to rise to the challenge of spreading his love and plan to the rest of the world. The plan was not about how Israel was MORE blessed than anyone else, but how Israel was given the opportunity to be God's servants throughout the whole world (if you read what I call the "fine print" of Gen 12:1-3, it implies strongly that "through Abraham, ALL the people of the world would be blessed"). I suppose we could say that this opportunity was itself a blessing and honor of sorts, but the plan was not focused on Israel (especially as a nation-state), but on a mechanism for spreading God's love to the whole world. This notion is incredible and amazing especially for the time it was conceived (at least 3,000+ years ago). But, as Israel misunderstood or abused God's plan to mean that they would become a great political nation, all manner of complications have ensued. To make a long story short (too late...?), the Bible is a story of how people continued to mis-apply God's plan to mean "blessings for themselves" more than "blessings for everyone". I believe this basically describes the plight of the human race more poignantly and accurately than pretty much any other explanation out there. And, again, this selfishness applies to everyone, not just the Jews, and not just to folks in the past...but to every human that's ever lived. So, I'll save more detail and argument (and biblical references, etc.) for subsequent rounds, but my premise is that God never meant for his servants to focus on becoming a nation-state, but to focus on serving others (regardless of where they lived or what nation they happened to be a part of). God wanted his servants to be "servants without borders", as it were. So, to the extent that Israel became an established nation-state (never as great, by the way, as so many of the empires and nations around them) and took focus off this "borderless servanthood" theme, it missed the boat, and our subsequent assumption that Israel (as a nation-state) somehow has a special place in God's plan likewise misses the boat. While the church has fallen short of God's plan as well, my premise is the church today comes closer to what God wanted all along: a network of people who would place God before nation and selfish gain and spread his love to everyone throughout the entire world. Hence, Peter called the church "a chosen generation", a network of people called to fulfill their end of God's great vision for the world. I now await my opponent's second round arguments.