Back to the Future... Removing Heimert from the Historiographical Lineage

The modern historiography of the subject of the Great Awakening appears to start with Perry Miller in the early 1960's.  

From there, we see Heimert's book come in the mid-1960's, followed by "a generally cool reception" (Stout 521) on his thesis that "'American Protestantism was divided by the Great Awakening' into 'two streams of thought -- evangelical and rational,' and that 'their contrasting heritages can be distinctly traced in the life of the mind in America, and its politics'" (McLoughlin 99-100). 

In 1967, we see reviews from two critics -- Morgan and Mead -- but also McLoughlin's review in which he states, "we have a convincing analysis of the hitherto amorphous relationship between the Awakening and the Revolution which it inspired" (McLoughlin 99).

In 1977 we see Stout's article in which he claims, "the conceptual framework [Morgan and Mead] impose on early America, and their way of reading historical documents, were molded largely by Perry Miller, and it was an extension of Miller's work that they interpreted Heimert." (Stout 522)  Stout takes a different approach and states that critics of Heimert's article "failed to recognize its value in suggesting a method of historical analysis that focuses on the context of communications". (Stout 521) 

In 1983, Murrin utilizes a "counterfactual argument" in analyzing the relationship between the Great Awakening and the Revolution stating that, "[counterfactual arguments] can also clarify issues that have become muddied and suggest useful avenues for future research" (Murrin 162).

Given the fact that it appears that Heimert's thesis shaped at least twenty years of historiography on the subject, if one were to apply Murrin's counterfactual analysis and remove Heimert's book from history, what would the historiography of the Great Awakening and the Revolutionary War be like in its absence?  Regardless of what we as historians think think about Heimert's thesis, did it not promote research on the subject and guide the historiography of the subject?  Would Stout, Murrin, et al be writing the same articles if it came straight from the lineage of Perry Miller?  Should historians even use Murrin's "counterfactual argument" to answer historical questions?