Can argue this either way

1 Corinthians 6 notes that believers should not sue each other, but what does a person do if he already has very clear evidence that the process used by the church in question is irreparably flawed, and the injury is such that it would be ruinous to let the offense slide?  Keep in mind that a great portion of 1 Corinthians 6 is Paul's rebuke to churches who allowed their wealthier members to oppress the poor through Roman courts.  Would we not infer that (as is the case in most churches) if indeed a small group is running things for their own convenience, Paul might rebuke them in the same way that 1 Cor. 6 seems to be a rebuke of wealthy parishioners of the ancient era?


It's not a good thing when believers go to secular courts against one another, but in an age where I see questions of abuse framed in terms that prejudice the discussion against the complainant, I don't know that I can completely rule it out.  At the very least, I can see a case for arbitrators independent of a given church body (and hence independent of their particular politics) to help sort things out.