Faithlife versus Facebook (or other Social Media)

Dr. Geoffrey R. Mabe

I want to think fairly and clearly here so I'm looking for solid feedback. I am trying to evaluate the usefulness of the FaithLife community tools as a fit for our church. Can someone provide some compelling reasons for why FaithlIfe might be a good alternative to (or even addition to) Facebook, since some of the community features in Faithlife are available already in Facebook? I will admit up front that my knowledge of the power of Faithlife is limited as I have not had the opportunity to fully evaluate. Nevertheless, I am interested in a discussion of pros and cons of Faithlife as compared to Facebook especially. As in many places, many of our members are familiar and comfortable with Facebook...the thought of switching to something different or duplicating things FB already does draws a collective groan. Thank you.

Andy

Hi Geoffrey,

We have been using Faithlife to facilitate a few specific groups within our church (the band, the leadership team and a mentorship programme) for some months now. The majority of the users maintain both Facebook and Faithlife accounts (plus accounts on other social networking platforms). In my opinion, the benefits of Faithlife over Facebook are as follows,

1. Faithlife is not Facebook. Although Facebook does what it does well, it is not ideally suited to serious interaction and study. I find the Facebook UI to be a distraction. In my opinion, the Faithlife interface is cleaner, more focused and the banner ads less distracting. I think there is also a benefit in differentiating between platforms for different purposes (this distinction may not make sense in your context depending upon your intended use).

2. I find it easier to define specific groups within Faithlife. It is very easy to manage group membership and group visibility (from secret through to open groups). For example, the membership of the mentorship group is limited to those enrolled on the programme. This group is not visible. This differentiation is possible (to a degree) with Facebook, but feels easier to execute and manage in Faithlife.

3. The greatest advantage, in my opinion, is the interface between Faithlife and the Logos ecosystem. For example, we find that Faithlife facilitates collaboration between the preaching team, the band and our utilisation of Proclaim. Moreover, Faithlife enables various groups to share notes and discuss and reference specific Logos/Vryso resources in a way which is not possible outside of Faithlife.

Notwithstanding this, Faithlife is most useful for those who have access to Logos/Vyrso resources and/or Proclaim. I also accept that there may be an understandable reluctance to engage with a further social networking platform in an already overcrowded field. In my context, I hope to see this reluctance dissipate somewhat as people begin to see the benefits of Faithlife. 

Hope this helps.