Remember when diet soda was new. The key marking strategy was to convince you that it was just as good as regular soda. In fact, diet Coke took it one step further. They used the slogan, “just for the taste of it.” In other words, they wanted people to get the idea that people drank it for the taste and not because it had less sugar. This is true with anything that's low-fat, low-carb, or low sugar. They always try to get you to believe that the diet version is just as good as as the regular version, only it's better for you. I find that something similar happens in Christian music.

There's always a push to convince you that Christian music is just as good as secular music, just better for you spiritually. The problem is that while many people like to drink diet soda, nobody wants to listen to diet music. I call this the diet soda syndrome. There are two problems with the diet soda syndrome. First, a musician should not be passed off as a substitute for another musician. Second, Christian music should not have the goal of being “just as good” as secular music.

    The reason that you cannot market Christian music as diet music is that music is an art form. As with all art forms, music is an expression of a person. You cannot substitute one band for another, any more then you can replace one person with another. When Christians market their music in a way that suggests that they trying to be a substitute for secular music, they are in effect objectifying the artists. You can substitute functional items like toaster and TVs, but you cannot substitute artistic expressions. Just like a man cannot replace his wife when she is gone for the weekend. To imply otherwise would reduce his wife to a purely functional purpose.

    Some readers may be wondering how this happens. Diet music syndrome happens when well intentioned people try to make Christian music a substitute for secular music. It may be a youth minister that puts up a poster that lists secular bands and their Christian equivalents. It may be parent who take away their son's secular rap CD and gives them a DC talk CD instead. Sometime even the bands are to blame --when a Christian band tries very hard to sound and look like a secular band.

    It's not bad to compare a Christian band to a secular band, but it should not be presented as a Christian substitute for the secular band. It's also acceptable for a Christian band to have similar musical style to secular bands, they just should not try to be a Christian version of another band. Whenever you compare Christian and secular music ask yourself this question: when comparing a Christian musician to a secular musician what is the purpose? If the purpose is to get someone to stop listening to the secular band and to start listening to the Christian band instead, you may be guilty of the diet soda syndrome. On the other hand, if you equally respect both artists and you are just talking about bands with similar musical styles, then you're probably fine. A lot a musicians have similar styles, for the simple reason that musicians are influenced by other musicians.

    Second, for a Christian to think that Christian music can be just as good as a secular music, he is not approaching the subject from the right perspective. Why should a Christian accept music that is only “just as good?” Why not try to be better? As long as Christian musicians have the goal of being “just as good,” they'll always end up being second best. If someone is hostile to Christian music, they aren't going to listen to it, if it's only “just as good,” but they might, if the music is better. We want people hear a Christian band and say, “wow, I know their Christian, but I never heard of anyone who can play like that!” If Christian music is to ever get to this point, Christian musicians need to be leaders and not followers. Christians should be the ones coming up with new musical styles and not just trying to mimic what secular musicians are doing.