Yes, it really did
The Bible is quite clear that the resurrection of Jesus "really happened" in the same literal, historical sense that the sinking of the Titanic really happened. Frankly, I don't understand those who say, let's not press that point too hard; of whom Ms. Dolbee's article says, "there are Christians who simply don't buy into the physical Resurrection account. . . For Gray, the Resurrection was spiritual, not physical."
I cannot see how God can communicate a "spiritual truth" through a historical lie. Either a dead Jesus came back to life and was seen by His disciples, or not. If not--if some part of that report is untrue--then Jesus' followers lied.
As I often do, I challenge these revisionist "Christians" to put that kind of logic into practice in some other area of their life. How would he feel if he received a report that his wife had been unfaithful to him, and when he asked her about it, her only response was, "Honey, it doesn't matter whether I really slept with him or not, but how the report affects your life"? Rev. Gray says, according the the article, that his doubts about the historical truth of the resurrection do not diminish his faith. But if he was hiring a tutor for his teenage son, and the candidate for the job would not submit to a background check, wouldn't that diminish his faith in the tutor?
It does not make something more "spiritual" to place it out of the reach of scientific or historical investigation--unless you are a Gnostic, believing that the material world is either evil, or simply irrelevant. That kind of spirituality, which has become so popular lately, is completely opposite from Christianity and the Scriptures.
The apostle Paul, for instance, deliberately proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus when he spoke on Christianity to the philosophers gathered at the Acropolis in Athens. He included it because it is a crucial part of Christianity. When it offended them, because many of his hearers were influenced by the same kind of Platonism that had given rise to Gnosticism, he didn't say, "Well, anyway, gentlemen, let's not get bogged down in that little detail." He stuck to his insistence that these were facts--even though it lost him most of his audience.
Paul went from there to Corinth. Later, looking back on that visit, he wrote to the Corinthian Christians at Corinth, "When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified "(1 Cor. 2:1 NIV). The historical details would not get short shrift with Paul. Later in the same letter you can find what is often called the Great Resurrection Chapter--1 Corinthians 15--where he says
if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.
Read that chapter for yourself and then decide whether the historical factualness of the report of Jesus' resurrection is irrelevant to its "spiritual" benefits. The Bible says it happened. I believe it. I hope you do too.