John gives us a look at how religious people can behave. When confronted with a miracle, they asked some questions then pronounced their opinion that this Jesus could not have accomplished what was purported for him to have done. Their rationale--some of them asserted that he was not scrupulous enough in following the rules of their religion. Others categorized Jesus as a sinner and remarked that sinners weren't able to do the kinds of things that had been credited to him.
Since they weren't able to agree among themselves, they interviewed the once-blind man himself. He said "He is a prophet." Not yet satisfied, they then interviewed his parents. Because of their fear of what would be thought of them, they refused to say what they thought. Instead, they merely repeated what their son had told them. "If you want to know what he says that happened, ask him, not us."
As we consider the evangelism efforts of our particular local churches or our denomination, we might consider who represents us in this story. Are we the official religious types that can judge whether someone has been able to do the work that God wants to be done or even who is eligible to try? Are we the parents who are so afraid of others' opinions that we are incapable of admitting the good that God has done in our lives, how people close to us have been helped? Or, are we like the man who had been healed--able to recognize what has been done for us and willing to say so?
How much blindness is self-inflicted? How much blindness is protective when we really don't want to see something anyway?