Recently someone expressed to me that they see Anglican theologian, historian, and author N.T. Wright as adhering to "replacement theology".
Interestingly, a few days later I read this in Wright's "How God Became King" (p. 197):
"Many in Jesus' day were seeking to renew God's people this way and that. The gospels present Jesus as fitting exactly into that context and culture, with his prophetic ministry aimed, like all prophetic ministries over the previous centuries, at challenging Israel to turn from its wayward folly and to embrace once more its true vocation. The gospels themselves were written from and to communities of Jesus' followers, who believed that in Jesus as Israel's Messiah this renewal had become actual. Israel had not been abandoned. It had not been "replaced". It had been transformed. That, indeed, was the source of many of the early Christians' problems (should pagan converts get circumcised and keep the food laws?) as well as the root of their self-understanding.
Of course, this transformation was anything but a smooth progression, a steady "development" from one phase to another. The story retains is thoroughgoing "apocalyptic" overtones all the way through: a veil is ripped back; things previously hidden are now unveiled, making the world a radically different place; events occur that change Israel and the world for ever."
You’ve got your methods
I’m done with trying to guess all your moves
I’m going where you want me to go
I’ve got nothing left to lose
Now I don’t wanna suffer
But that’s in fact the nature of the beast
If you want to get to higher ground
You got to get there on your knees