In 2012, that feels ugly and unworthy of God. It is reasonable to argue that God being God could figure out some other way to reveal divine power without forcing this man into blindness for all of his life up to the point of healing. The counter-argument would be that God actually doubly blessed him because he unexpectedly gained his sight, something that had to cause him great joy. If, however, any human authority consciously blinded someone under its authority so that it could later prove a point we would rightly condemn the inhumanity of that authority. We thus can't give God a pass.
There is another way to look at the story, however, one that puts this event in its historical context and sees where Jesus was headed in his teachings. At the heart of it, Jesus freed the man's condition from sin. He removed the religiously based social stigma and prejudice attached to blindness and other physical maladies. For his own time, this was liberating and in and of itself healing. Even more revolutionary was his insistence that this blind man had a positive role to play in the plans of God. God did not condemn him with blindness but favored him with it. His condition was a holy one.
In 21st century terms, we may still not be satisfied with the "fact" that God caused the man's blindness in order to fulfill some divine plan. In first century terms, however, we see Jesus redefining blindness in a liberating way—but doing so within the framework of the first century. He accepted the fundamental idea that God caused blindness because that was only common sense. What else could cause blindness but God? He then reshaped common sense in ways that were more humane, affirming, and caring. He thus set us on a trajectory away from prejudice, stereotyping, and disdain and toward compassion. To be faithful to Christ in 2012, we need but follow the trajectory while rejecting out of hand the idea that God causes blindness and other forms of human suffering. God works for healing, not hurt.
