The reasonable person test is something I use to determine if the remarks a pastor makes sound true or not. I ask myself, what would a reasonable person say in a situation like this. In the case of Mark Lewis, he fails the test. This is what he said when asked by a reporter about the arrest of three people who allegedly perpetrated the crime and are now saying that Lewis paid them to do the act.
"'They caught the people who did that,' the pastor said. 'They were just trying to point the finger at me. That's normal. That's normal. It'll come out and be cleared up.'"
Is that what a pastor would say in this situation? No! It sounds off. It sounds wrong. I come to this conclusion because of motive. Lewis is trying to explain why three people are linking him to the crime by saying something like, “Well, what do you expect from trash?”
The three people who were arrested for the firebombing have no motive other than financial gain. These losers did it for money. Why? Because a few hundred dollars is a lot of money to homeless drug addicts. It is simple math. Do the pastor a favor = make a hundred bucks = go get high. We all know this to be true.
Lewis is linked to both groups. The victim is his ex-girlfriend and at least one of the homeless lived with Lewis at his church. All three suspects are making the same allegation against Lewis. They were to be paid for what they did. By who? The person with the motive maybe? So far, that is only Lewis.
What could have Lewis said that I would have believed? A categorical denial of any and all evolvement along with an assurance of cooperation would have been a good start. Instead, he’s trying to figure out how to explain restraining orders, firebombing, drugs and guns. Did I mention he was a pastor?