I don't automatically agree with protestors, and I don't see that the default position should be to do so.  If this were the case then the people protesting agaisnt Salman Rushdie, abortion clinics and  gay marriage would automatically get your backing.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation of my position.You haven't got this from anything I've posted.

As to whether the bible is (only) what you say...this has been debated for centuries.  There were people who believed that the Bible said we should hold everything in common...I believe the 39 articles makes a point of saying that the bible doesn't say this at all....so it's up for debate.

There are countless theologies. Some people hold to the idea of prosperity theology - that God rewards the righteous with prosperity.  They substantiate their beliefs from the Bible. 

However, just because there are people who believe such things, doesn't make it right for organisations to sit on the fence, pretending that some internal, plural, inclusive debate is going on from which they will, at some stage in the nebulous future, distil a collective opinion.  That simply turns the church into an impotent, do nothing, stand for nothing, irrelevance - which is my point.

Where people are protesting for a fairer deal for the poor.  Where they are challenging a power structure which clearly assists the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, it is right for Christians to stand in solidarity with those people no matter what any other debating factions may say.  If the C of E can't do this, either because the factions which disagree with such solidarity are too numerous or too powerful, or because they hold a misplaced loyalty to interminable debate at the expense of righteous action, then the C of E has lost its use.