In its narrowest sense, a sabbatical is a time (ranging from six months to one year) during which a professional reflects on his or her vocation and seeks new, creative ways to contribute positively to its enhancement. He or she usually is expected to pursue advanced courses or degrees. A sabbatical is not, however, a vacation.

For pastors, what it offers is time away from all responsibilities to review and renew their God-given visions for their churches, as well as to do some soul searching with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It might include formal or personal study, travel and/or just plain relaxation. More than a reward for years of service, a sabbatical is an opportunity for spiritual and physical replenishment.

From the congregation’s perspective, it should view the sabbatical as a proactive step in helping to ensure their pastor is periodically renewed before he or she faces an emotional, spiritual or physical crisis. Sabbaticals work best when church boards recognize a pastor’s work is demanding and places him or her in the middle of real spiritual battle.

Finally, we must bear in mind that although the Bible doesn’t command us to give pastors sabbaticals, the principle of “renewal” that’s inherit in these situations is well documented throughout scripture (Genesis 2:3, Psalm 23:2-3, Mark 2:27- 28, Exodus 23:10-12 and Leviticus 25:1-7).

There are a number of issues to address when devising any pastoral sabbatical policy.

These include:

• Specific purpose and parameters of the sabbatical.
• Criteria for eligibility [e.g., years of service locally or years from ordination] and what will happen if the pastor leaves soon after going on a sabbatical, especially a fully paid one.
• Minimum and maximum duration limits.
• Allocation and scheduling of multiple sabbaticals for a group of staff members, including any restrictions on how many could be on sabbatical at any given time.
• Funding options, including any tax implications or special treatment. This can range from selffunded over the previous six years via a deferred-salary plan to joint-funded plans to plans in which the church fully funds the sabbatical through its budget.* 
• Procedures for administering the sabbatical.
• Monitoring of, and reporting about, the sabbatical.

Pastors and congregations should be careful not to “overfill” the sabbatical in the planning stage. Thinking the pastor will do many different things can result in his or her doing very little because a specific focus is missing. It’s best to identify two or three things that need to be accomplished from the perspective of both the pastor and the board (depending on the identified purpose of the sabbatical) and then to facilitate its completion.

It’s also advisable that pastors on sabbatical — even if hundreds of miles away from home — not be involved in activities that mirror what they do for their own churches. (For instance, going on a sabbatical that entails speaking in different churches every Sunday is a speaking tour, not a sabbatical.)

On the other hand, neglecting to put into place any required structures for the sabbatical might be troublesome for some pastors who need the regiment of a schedule to finish tasks.When providing pastors with such security, it’s important that time for relaxation, family relationships and reflection be built into the routine.

Stakeholders in a sabbatical must arrive at the appropriate balance between tasks to accomplish (writing a book, taking a course, visiting certain places and so on) and doing no work (God rested on the Sabbath, the land lay idle during the year, etc.). Although primarily proposed by the pastor, arriving at that balance jointly is a critical step in a sabbatical’s success.

One phenomenon occurs regularly enough to be noteworthy: A congregation lets the pastor go on a sabbatical and realizes, in the person of his or her replacement, what they’ve been missing. This can lead to dissatisfaction with the pastor on sabbatical and, sometimes, an ultimate parting of the ways.

While this might be unavoidable, being fully aware of the possibility should affect how a church approaches both the granting of a sabbatical and how it fills the pastoral gap.

Finally, as one pastor on his return from sabbatical reported, there was an awful feeling of not being involved in the Easter program and services at his church. While celebrating such holidays is an excellent opportunity for personal renewal by sitting in the pews on such occasions, perhaps some thought should be given to arranging for him or her to be part of such services somehow. While there are benefits and risks to granting and/or taking a sabbatical, the overwhelming consensus is that they must be an option. If properly planned and managed, they can achieve their purpose.

*The Lily Endowment in Indianapolis invites applications for the National Clergy Renewal Program, which is intended to strengthen congregations by providing an opportunity for pastors to go on sabbaticals. In 2002, the Fund helped 135 churches in this way.

Dear Reader,

This issue shouldn’t arise if the parties involved are communicating well and if good policies are in place. Nevertheless, if it does, it can strain relationships.

First, a denomination that’s expecting all of a local church’s mission endeavors to be those blessed by a head office is barking up the wrong tree. For starters, such a position ignores the working and leading of the Holy Spirit to function in the hearts and minds of local congregants.Otherwise, they would commit themselves to specific ministries or offer prayerful and financial support to certain individuals in the congregation who embark on missions not under the umbrella of the denomination.

Second, it restricts congregations’ creativity in finding new ways to facilitate the preaching of the Gospel anywhere in the world.

Third, it creates an environment whereby the local church finds it easier not to communicate its involvement in such programs at wider denominational gatherings.

Fourth, in circumstances in which there is known to be involvement that’s not highly regarded, it causes the parties to be perceived as uncooperative or having diverse objectives.

Finally, I’ve noted that churches that do adhere strictly to denominational programs are often perceived by outsiders as too exclusive in their approach to missions.

All these outcomes are unhealthy. The local church also has an onus not to exclusively pursue mission programs outside those recommended by the denomination. In fact, a local church that is heavily active in missions should make it a priority to do all it can on behalf of the denominational programs and then, in addition, engage its people in additional local initiatives as an exhibit of beyond-the-call-of-duty involvement. Both parties should be extremely careful not to be critical of one another’s goals and objectives.

One area that causes concern and should be avoided if possible is the situation in which a senior pastor is heavily involved and seeks to engage his or her congregation in mission programs that are parallel to what the denomination is already doing, but under different organizations. On the other hand, if the denomination is only involved in global or international missions, then the local church has every right to become engaged in national or community missions on its own.

In a spirit-filled attitude, local churches and denominations/associations should share mission involvements openly and with great enthusiasm. Local churches should cooperate with higher authorities in participating in the broader programs, and the latter should welcome and encourage local churches’ involvement in additional initiatives.

In fact, both parties’ mission policies should be written in such a way that needs and interests are fully compatible, encouraged and perhaps even required. For example, policies could be written that recommend a minimum percentage of the local church’s overall budget (or mission budget) be directed to denominational programs with the discretion to spend more in that regard, or to direct any portion of the balance towards unique and more local initiatives. Guidelines could also be written to recommend that where parallel programs exist, the local church will endeavor to participate in the program under the auspices of the denomination.

What should be avoided at all costs, however, is a situation in which the denomination has policies that force the local church into a corner and/or give it no opportunity to pursue its interests without appearing to be defiant of the denomination’s wishes.

Ken Godevenos has served and chaired several church boards. He’s a human resources and church consultant, trained mediator and executive director of Shantymen International. Call 905.853.6228 or visit www.accordconsulting.com for more information.