Your need to look at the article again
You need to appeal based on the grounds set out on there
So using Helmsley
• clear on their face
• free of the real risk of an unintentional breach
This isn't - the position on a Sunday Church Service is not clear
• No order should be drawn wider than is necessary to achieve its stated purpose
• In the absence of evidence or inference which can properly be drawn, normal activities should not be prohibited or restrained.
• There must be a real rather than remote risk of harm arising from the commission of further such offences.
• Consider whether prohibitions on contact with children are really necessary if the offence, for example, is one of viewing child pornography
In a Church stting there can be no risk
The three questions are
i.Is the making of an order necessary to protect from serious harm through the commission of scheduled offences? - arguable
ii.If some order is necessary, are the terms proposed nevertheless oppressive? - currently yes
iii.Overall are the terms proportionate? -probably not
So your appeal should target those issues and explain why they are wrong by illustrating each point.
Then redraft the order AS IT IS CURRENTLY SET OUT with your changes in general terms - not bits about acknowledging this or that.
The reference to the contract with the church and the Course you will attend should be made as part of showing that the current restrictions do not satisfy those three questions
The issue regarding the services at home is the one most likely to be the point that loses the whole thing - it will be seen as an odd request and could undermine the rest of your case.
Your choice though!