Anybody who says +4 votes is a consensus on Meta is barking up the wrong tree.
There are only two consensus based rules agreed to on meta.
Pastoral advice is off topic
We're not "Christians.SE" we're "Christianity.SE"
The rest is in the FAQ, but other than FAQqy type questions there, this is all it boils down to. You can't ask for just advice and your questions have to be objectively answerable because this is a Q&A site about Christian Doctrine.
We haven't had enough interest in the last couple of years to make any real new rules on meta. That may be why someone could consider the bar to be low for consensus, it could very well be that everyone who stumbled upon it thought it was good. You never know the reason someone votes up or down for something in meta, I get a lot of knee jerk -1's, and I'll probably get them here even though I havnen't written anything untrue or untoward.
If what your beef is what I think it is, I think we were coming close to a hard line for what constitutes off-topic with respect to unscoped exegesis, thanks to some hard work by a few committed flaggers, but in truth I prefer the subjective nature of closing some questions that aren't interesting - fixing others and even sometimes just leaving them open to wander aimlessly. Because sometimes the question attracts the right kind of answerer implicitly by the way it is phrased and it doesn't have to say "According to the Copts".
But, if someone actually gives you a response for a -1 or a close vote, consider yourself lucky. Most seem to just be drive bys - but I certainly think you're justified in calling someone out who say +4 is a consensus!
Finally, my suggestion would be not to find a hard line for a quorum to point to a consensus, but link to meta and encourage people to do what St. Paul says:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.