Question

A clarification: everything I’m writing here is my own understanding and not necessarily precise; it’s recommended to look at the original source (especially Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, chapters 1–2).
One of the foundational ideas of Chabad teaching (and perhaps the central one) is the Baal HaTanya’s conception of coming-into-being, which basically argues that creation is not a one-time event, but must be renewed at every moment. And if for even one moment the Holy One, blessed be He, were to stop bringing the world into being and bringing it forth from absolute nothingness into the reality that it is, then everything would cease to exist and would be as though it had never been at all.
In other words, according to Chabad, the claim that “God has forsaken the earth” is incorrect not only technically, but essentially impossible (because if God were to forsake the earth, there would be no earth). And of course this has implications for individual providence, that even a leaf falling from a tree is under supervision, etc.
And much of Chabad’s radicalism and totality comes from this point, that “there is nothing besides Him,” but this is not the place for that.
 
The rationale behind this approach lies in the uniqueness of the act of creation, which is not at all like performing a physical action in the world, which is something-from-something. For example, making a vessel from a lump of silver: after it is made, the smith can go stroll through the market while the vessel continues to exist, and it no longer needs the smith’s hands. The creation of heaven and earth is not like that, because it is something-from-nothing, and not merely the revelation of a potential that already existed in the lump of silver, but a genuine bringing-into-being of something. And in such a case, it is not enough merely to be the trigger for the change; one must continuously bring the change into being. That’s the very short version, and this could be expanded on a lot.
I think this approach makes sense—what do you think?
Do you know of such an approach among other philosophers?