Everyone loves a conspiracy theory, and Dan Brown’s mega-selling novel about a shakeup in Christian history has proved to be no exception. The opening weekend of the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" is upon us, and controversy continues to rage concerning Brown’s story.

Although many academics are heralding the opening of the embattled film as a "teachable moment," it remains to be seen how teachable audiences will be. These days, it’s maddeningly difficult to know whom to trust. Religious extremists? Hollywood filmmakers? Truth-bending novelists and their marketers? All sides of the debate seem too intransigent to be useful.

Some aspects of Brown’s story have at least the ring of truth: The church was and might still be a patriarchal institution that oppresses women, and Opus Dei is at least a little weird. But there seems to be near universal agreement among scholars that although Brown did a great job of propagating a myth that is too intriguing to ignore, most of his facts are simply wrong.

"It’s so false on the face of it that it deserves no credit," said Jill Raitt, professor emerita of religious studies at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "There’s just no good historical basis. That these things can grow and be taken seriously should not surprise us," she said.

The problem is not just that Brown has misinterpreted early Christianity but also that he goes out of his way to claim that the historical aspects of his novel - the descriptions of documents and secret societies - are factual. The theory at the center of Brown’s novel says that the Priory of Sion, a mysterious European society, has spent centuries guarding the secret of Jesus Christ’s marriage to Mary Magdalene and their descendants, who are still living in France.

Even if Jesus was married, what’s the big deal? Many Christians probably could accept that Jesus had a wife without feeling like their faith had been shattered, said Lois Huneycutt, a history professor at MU who teaches Christian history courses.

But the larger question deals with Jesus’ divinity, which is indeed a foundation of Christianity.

"Christianity is based on this belief that Jesus is a divine being," Huneycutt said. "If that was all made up in the fourth century, then Christianity rests on false foundations."

Brown questions the divinity of Jesus by suggesting Jesus was viewed as a mere mortal until Emperor Constantine turned him into a deity in the fourth century through a vote by the Council of Nicaea.

But historians say the purpose of the council was to determine the structure of the Holy Trinity and debate technicalities about Jesus’ humanity, not to question his divinity.

Critics of "The Da Vinci Code" also take issue with Brown’s assertion that Constantine chose the four Gospels of the New Testament and censored those that made Christ seem less than godlike.

But historians say Christians reached consensus on the authority of the first century’s four Gospels and letters of Paul during the second century; Constantine was not involved in those decisions.

"It’s a book about big ideas; you can love them or you can hate them," Brown said in a recent speech. "But we’re all talking about them, and that’s really the point."

Although Brown’s big ideas are intriguing, the devil is in the details, and that’s where he seems to come up short. What’s more, Brown’s confusing mix of fact and fiction might be doing more harm than good as he takes advantage of most people’s ignorance of early Christian history.

"I’m of the opinion that it’s always good to be learning," Huneycutt said, "so if it’s causing people to learn, I’m fine with it. On the other hand, it is changing people’s opinions very subtly about things or at least making them open to the possibilities."

Huneycutt said that even though she is not Catholic, she understands the Vatican’s qualms about the book and the portrayal of some of its sects. Huneycutt is concerned that readers accept Brown’s book as typical historical fiction - where factual information need not be questioned - when it really isn’t.

"I think he deliberately plays with the line between fact and fiction - and that’s OK for a writer to do - but I think a lot of people are just genuinely confused," Huneycutt said.

Other local religious scholars share a similar view. The Rev. Edwin Cole at Sacred Heart Catholic Church said most people who read and see "The Da Vinci Code" don’t have the deep understanding of early Christian history that’s necessary to see where Brown is revising the facts to suit his fiction. Cole hopes Brown’s story will lead to a better understanding of historical details and personal faith.

"Right now I think it’s mired in controversy, but I would hope that the long-term fallout would be that people will think seriously about their own faith and where that leads them," Cole said. "This is an ongoing thing that we’re finding. People are searching. People are trying to find meaning in their lives."

That’s a point echoed by the Rev. John Baker of First Baptist Church, who said that spiritual uncertainty has created a giant market for the sale of spiritual guidance, and it’s each person’s spiritual task to determine who is just out to make a buck.

"The bottom line is that Dan Brown is a marketing genius, and I don’t think we should deny anybody in America from writing a great book," Baker said. "I don’t think his main goal was to sit down and write a novel that’s purpose was to discredit the church. I think his purpose was to sell a jillion books. It’s really quite a stroke of genius."

Despite the intrusion of capitalism on faith, Baker thinks the controversy has created a worthwhile discussion that ultimately will help people grow in their spirituality.

"When it’s all said and done, people will know more about what they believe," Baker said. "And Dan Brown will make millions."