Since you are the only one in the company I assume that you are not using a PDM system at all... Then it is quite tempting to use configurations. My experience is that configurations should be used carefully. Have you thougt about revision handling of the used parts, sub-assemblies, the assembly and the referenced drawings?
To have an accurate engineering set up I would recommend to keep same revision level of the assembly as the drawing(s). This get tricky if one assembly is used for multiple drawings showing different assemblies (Thinking that the drawings would have different IDs / Part no when using configurations.). I would also recommend to use same filename of the drawing as the referenced file.
You could use the tool to make the generic design work using tables etc. But in the end, I would recommend to break down the configurations into different files for each drawing. This is my answer that comes with my background. For sure there is scenarios when it could be a benefit to use configrations... but if I would use configurations.. then I would do some sort of design table / matrix that shows the different designs on the same drawing in order to keep things together. I would call the drawing "master drawing" and it would contain suffixes in the design table / matrix to identify the different assemblies. I might be fussy on what I mean... please let me know if you want me to explain more about that.
And at the end of the day... this question might be as religion... some methods and solutions just fit companies and person better than other
As Daniel said, this is a religious question. I don't have a problem with having multiple drawings for different configurations of an assembly. It is a bit confusing to people to see that the revision level of the assembly and the drawings don't match, but I don't have much of a problem with that, especially if you use a PDM system to keep track of your files. (I would recommend that even if you stay at just one SW person.)
In our environment we use configurations only within part/assembly families, where the same parts are within the part families and possibly the only difference is a mounting option not related to or affected by the rest of the design. For instance a back cover or front panel. My preference is to make the first configuration the most involved one and 'turn off' unused features for the others. It does considerably speed up drawing production. I would be a lot busier if I didn't use configurations.