According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry entitled "Idealism", idealism is defined as: "something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality".Craig holds that "the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind" (Craig & Sinclair 2009, 193).So it seems clear that Craig's ontology is a kind of idealism since the mental is fundamental and prior to the physical.
I use the term monist or monistic in a new way, with a spiritual connotation that education can’t surmount. A dualist is someone to whom the objects of the material realm have intrinsic value. A monist sees the material realm as separable from the soul, which alone has intrinsic value. A dualist has an ownership concept; a monist does not. From this and other key differences flow immensely different choices in practical daily living.Jesus remarked that it is a miracle if matter arose from spirit, but an even greater miracle if spirit arose from matter. I’d point out here that the “something mental” to which you here refer, may be something unexpected. That is to say, by logic it is possible that the Mind of God bears absolutely no resemblance to the human mind, and if so all attempts to think about God’s Mind are doomed to failure in God’s sight, as men use their own minds as a pattern to begin wondering. In fact if God is the Creator, this is very likely.
I'm sorry but as interesting as your post is, I'm not seeing how this addresses the OP. Are you in agreement that Craig's position lapses into a kind of idealism or are you in disagreement?