I was excited to see your post, Jacob, because I am writing a paper on "friendship" theology and ecclesiology. I believe this line of questions offers promise for improving the "conversation" as between people of differing faiths. Because I am Roman Catholic, I am following the lead of what I think is novel and seminal work done by John Dadosky writing in the Heythrop Journal in its most recent publication advocating a re-interpretation of Vatican II to include a theology of friendship in addition to the widely held communion theology of the documents coming out of that council.

Contrary to your suggestion, the trend is not to abandon the word friend for the word neighbor, but to go in the other direction and convert the word neighbor to a meaning closer to the notion of friend. I can tell you that friendship theology is not well developed in the literature. The most developed friendship philosophy is, according to my research, attributable to a political philosopher of the 20th Century named John Macmurray. Aside from Macmurray, there is not much in the literature. More on this in another post, perhaps.

Appropriate here is what to do with the so-called "world texts" of scripture. I was busily constructing an elegant theory of friendship when, as a passing thought, I checked scriptural references to the word "friend." I came upon James 4:4 and the dishonest manager parable of Luke.

Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. James 4:4

I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents. Luke 16:9

It does not appear that the New Testament is firendly toward the concept of friendship. But finding these scriptural references raised other issues as well. As a scholar, I have found scripture that is contrary to what I believe. So, what to do? Why interpret, of course, until I have made the scriptures, through exegisis and biblical interpretation, say or mean what I want them to say or mean, or at least not contrary to my thesis. These thoughts trouble me. How much of what we do in biblical interpretation is precisely this sort of disingenuosness, I wonder?

But back to the point, your questions are extremely good ones, especially in the RC context. Is it really necessary, that we bring all people in to communion with (and subject to dominion of) the Church or can we engage in conversations in an environment of friendship which results in mutual covenants concerning our co-existence?

Other words that come into play are freedom and relationship.

Also, I spent the summer reading the Quran, and have some impressions about the Holy Scripture which I can share if anyone is interested, but I suggest that no one should be interested because I am very much now more sensitive to the idea that the Quran cannot be adequately translated into English and that much that has meaning in the Quran does not have meaning from a hellenistic perspective.

Thanks for your post.