I'm very happy with this move. In fact, I argue for something very much like this in Unclean. When push comes to shove if you ask me what loving God means I'll respond with "loving your neighbor." In fact, I'd go on to argue that when the two become decoupled--when loving God is pursued independently of loving your neighbor--we create the ingredients for the most toxic aspect of religion: loving God against your neighbor.
All that to say, Christian a/theism recommends something very much along these lines. The collapse of the transcendent dimension is a sort of "death of God" move that allows us, in the wake of this collapse, to find God immanently, in the brokenness of our human relationships.
And again, I'm comfortable with this move. Though I don't tend to read the collapse of the transcendent as a "death of God" move as much as a theologia crucis or Girardian move. That is, in the cross God divinizes the victim, calling us to stand in solidarity with the victim to instantiate the Kingdom of God. The cry of dereliction on the cross is less metaphysical than sociological. The issue isn't that God is dead as much as it is about where God is socially located (i.e., among the god-forsaken and cursed--the victims of the earth).
Still, the Christian a/theists make a good point in noting that when the transcendent dimension is alive and well it often captures the horizontal dimension. A theology of the cross is often trumped by a theology of glory. A related temptation that I talk about in Unclean is how the transcendent dimension creates a Gnostic pull, where we ignore the brokenness of the human, horizontal plane by escaping into spiritual and religious pursuits.
The point being that the Christian a/theists are right. As long as it exists the vertical dimension is always going to be a temptation and the source of the most toxic manifestations of religion. And if that is so, perhaps it is best, or just safer, to jettison the whole thing. Do the "death of God" a/theism thing and collapse the transcendent.
And it's at this point where I'd like to make a clarification.
It's one thing to find this move advantageous and quite another to insist that this move is necessary. Sure, it's safer, but safer doesn't mean necessary, that love of neighbor necessitates or requires a death of God move. There is a weaker claim here and a stronger claim. The weaker claim is that a death of God move facilitates love of neighbor. The stronger claim is that a death of God move is necessary for love of neighbor. The weaker claim I'm totally on board with. But I don't think the stronger claim is correct. And yet, the stronger claim is often implicit in a lot of Christian a/theism argumentation: To become a humane and authentic Christian you must undergo the death of God experience.
But that can't be right. There are just too many exemplary saints (and no Christian a/theists of comparable caliber) who had robust experiences with the transcendent aspects of faith. Think of Mother Teresa, St. Francis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Dorothy Day. Shoot, think of Jesus who went off in the early mornings to pray, who studied the Scriptures and who celebrated the Jewish rituals. The point being, you can be intimately engaged with the transcendent dimension and still radically love your neighbor. Like Jesus, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, St. Francis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. People who prayed intensively, read and studied Scripture, and were devout in religious observance. These things do not have to be rejected or deconstructed to create radical compassion. In fact, for these cases engagement with the transcendent dimension fueled and supported engagement with the horizontal, human dimension.
Still, these are rare cases. Engagement with the transcendent is, for the reasons noted above, probably more likely to lead you away from the needs of others. You start becoming religious and pious and spiritual and self-righteous. But then again, while the transcendent may tempt you into a variety of toxic or unhealthy directions, and though a great many will succumb, this trajectory isn't necessary or inevitable.
All that to say, while I get the point of Christian a/theism and largely agree with its concerns and impulses, I do reject the notion that it is a necessary move. I think you can have a robust experience of the transcendent and be an exemplary Christian and human being, a person who is, on a day to day basis, radically available to others. Like Mother Teresa, St. Francis, or Dorothy Day. Or Jesus.
In short, you don't have to be an a/theist to be a Christ-like human being. Though for many, and this I'll readily admit, a/theism may be the best, quickest and safest route.