daily thought

I get a 'daily thought' each day from John Stott - one of my favorite living theologians. (A Reformed Anglican - teaching at Langham Place in London)
these thoughts are often great - and never without some merit.

The church needs constantly to hear God's Word. Hence the
central place of preaching in public worship. Preaching is
not an intrusion into it but rather indispensable to it.
For the worship of God is always a response to the Word of
God.

--John Stott - From "The Bible: Book for Today" (Leicester: IVP, 1982),
p. 57.

I think the above is particularly interesting- is our worship really always a response to the word of God? perhaps true in-church worship always is, but i think what we call worship, even that which we do on Sunday mornings, is often coming from our own needs/emotions/thoughts - it has nothing to do with God's word being preached and prayed.

God's word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path - but, should it be, as Stott is saying, the prompting of all true worship?

What is God's Word? is it simply the 66 Books of the Canon? Or is it any way in which God is revealed to us?

I have fallen down on my knees and worshiped God (or at least thought i was worshiping God), when presented with certain aspects of His creation - Glacier National Park, the birth of my children, a purple-flag iris - and even when presented with man-assisted creation - a cathedral in austria, certain pieces of music, a working air conditioner.

Maybe I'm picking it apart too much - i do that - and maybe Stott would say i am right to see a distinction between In-Church worship, especially the worship we engage in when taking the Lord's Supper, and our own personal and family worship.

I am confident, that even when my Bible is at home on my bedside table, and i am out in the woods being bowled over by God's Creation, that I am worshipping. So either, again, Stott is only talking about Church worship, or he is allowing for a broader interpretation of God's Word than just the canon. I think the former, for the latter would certainly be dangerous.