Strain & Misunderstanding?

In “A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections” Jonathan Edwards does a reasonable job at directing those judging the movement away from a focus on the “enthusiastic” practices of the newly awakened and toward a reflection on the quality of the works performed in the professing Christian’s daily life.  In his connecting the religion of the heart to the practical divinity of daily life and in his finding there “the most proper evidence of the gracious sincerity of professors,” Edwards theologically finds himself in the company of traditions not always respected by the revivalist movement – Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Anglicans, etc.  In his attempt to build bridges of understanding to the established church did he cause strain in his own movement?  Would he have gained respectability in Boston, but have lost respect on the frontier?

Looking at the modern descendants of the movement of which Edwards was a part I must also ask if all of his contemporaries fully understood his argument?  Many American Protestants speak a grace-only near antinomian gospel and yet at the same time look to outward signs of moralism and pietism to know who is “good” and who is “bad.”  Does this trend in American Christianity stem from a misunderstanding of Edwards, or does it have other sources?  (Or, does this perception stem from me reading my own theology into Edwards words?)