If discussed, it is lowered to the level of discussion.

Correct, the word "Monad" is lower than the Monad. The word is sufficient for limited purposes but incomplete for perfect purposes. Only the Monad is complete in itself for its own perfect purposes, a reality we don't participate in, since all our experience is incomplete but sufficient.

Nevertheless, when discussed between two who see it in agreement, God says 'There Am I'.

Because it's sufficient, we can agree that "Monad" ("One"), and "True", and "God" are positive attributes that reflect this indescribable without describing it. When two seek meeting of minds, sufficiency of experience means sufficient agreement arises. Logically parsed, your statement says God affirms his being in discussion among two in agreement; so the surface sense doesn't say that much, although we might say it teaches another attribute, "Immanence". And you might want to say that God is "Agreement" itself.

None of this indicates any contradiction with developed Christian creed, which is why I'm mystified by your animus about it. It seems that you're affirming some core monistic concepts and you're denying some perversions of Christianity but that neither gets to a core that requires a parting of ways.