OK, I see. In other words, the problem with theology is that it is not dogmatic enough -- er, I'm sorry, wrong connotation, I keep forgetting to reflect your irrational bias -- I meant religion does not have enough "consensus", yeah that's the ticket. At least on Tuesdays that is. On Wednesdays I suppose the problem will be that it is too dogmatic again. And then the connotation will be aimed correctly. Yes, yes, religion lacks "consensus" but is too "dogmatic". OK, got it. Was worried there for a minute. Can't think of theology in a positive light, oh no, can't do that.
Your distinctions resemble the rules of fizzbin.
The point you miss is that consensus in science results from assessed reliability, not always ,certainly, but generally. Even so, consensus on very reliable theories can be overturned as has happened. That doesn't mean the consensus was unwarranted but it does (or should) put paid to claims of knowable truth.
By contrast, religion (and philosophy) have no means of assessing the reliability of their "theories." Modern, adult people should not take such things seriously as statements of fact about the world, consensus or not, until some such method is available.