Team Chemistry
Something got posted and now the room is carrying it.
Maybe it was about a teammate. Maybe it was the kind of celebration that made people feel left out or disrespected. Maybe it said something publicly that contradicted what this team said it stood for. Whatever it was, there is a division in this room right now that didn’t exist before the post, and ignoring it is not going to make it go away.
Read this passage slowly.
Whoever would foster love covers over an offense, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.
Proverbs 17:9 — NIVLet that sit for a second before you move.
Whoever would foster love covers over an offense. The covering over here is not silence about something harmful — it is the choice not to repeat, amplify, and make permanent an offense that could be addressed and released. The alternative — repeating the matter — separates close friends. The repetition is the thing that does the lasting damage, not the original offense.
The social media conflict that divides a team almost always involves a secondary layer of damage that is worse than the original post: the commentary about the post, the screenshots shared in group chats, the conversations that happen about the person who posted it rather than with them. That secondary layer is where the division actually forms.
The resolution path is direct and it is the only one that works: the person who was hurt talks to the person who posted. Not through intermediaries. Not through the coaching staff as the first step. Directly. The conversation that says: what you posted affected me and this is why, and I want us to work through it rather than let it sit between us.
That conversation is uncomfortable. It is significantly less damaging than the alternative, which is a room that is technically together and operationally divided for the rest of the season.
The secondary damage of social media conflict — the commentary, the screenshots, the side conversations — is worse than the original post. The only path through is the direct conversation.
Is there a direct conversation about this that needs to happen between specific people in this room? What is standing in the way of it happening today?
Practical and specific. The question names the obstacle rather than the aspiration, which is more useful.
Have the direct conversation. Today. The indirect processing is making it worse.
This devotional is reactive — for use after a specific social media incident has occurred. It is not for general social media instruction.