The isolated church of St. Luke is idyllically situated by itself among the sweeping agricultural fields SW of the village of Tixover. Walking down the quiet rural path through Manor Farm, one eventually comes upon this stunning, rubble church just N of the River Welland. The small nave and chancel date from the early 13thc. and the S porch was added in the 15thc. During an 1860s restoration, the clerestory, with its circular windows, was added to the nave. However, the prominent, massive, unbuttressed W tower dates from the 12thc. with the exception of the embattled parapet. Other Romanesque features are the S doorway, the W tower arch into the nave, the S arcade of the nave and, possibly, a reset stone in the piscina and also the font.

At the time of Domesday Book in 1086, Tixover belonged to the manor of Ketton which was held by King William I in the wapentake of Witchley in Northamptonshire. Though no church is mentioned in Ketton, a priest is listed among the inhabitants. Between 1104 – 1106, Queen Maud granted land in Tixover to Bishop Robert Bloet of Lincoln; King Henry I confirmed this gift in 1123. Included in this grant was the advowson of the church at Tixover which became part of a Lincoln Cathedral prebendary which held it until 1855; in 1888 the advowson passed to the Bishop of Peterborough.

The current dedication of the church, as noted by the Diocese of Peterborough, is to St. Luke. However Arnold-Foster notes the pre-Reformation dedication to St. Mary Magdalene and Pevsner too cites the dedication as being to St. Mary Magdalene. It is not clear when the dedication switch was made, though the VCH of Rutland, from 1935, already notes the dedication to St. Luke.

On the W tower, the monolithic rolls in both the 1st and 2nd orders of the stage 2, S wall window, suggest that they are replacement pieces. Also, on the S doorway, the chamfered trefoil tympanum, comprised of two pieces of stone, is very unusual and likely a later reworking of the stone or an insertion.

On the interior W tower arch leading into the nave, the 2^nd and 3^rd order nook shaft capitals on the S respond were switched in their positions from the E to the W side. It is very uncommon to see both the E and W sides of the arch so fully carved, including even the label on both sides here. This may speak to the prominence of the church in the region and/or to the ritual importance of this ground level tower space which at one time held the baptismal font (see VCH photograph preceding p. 229). However, the VCH also notes that prior to being in this tower space the font was set up near the W respond of the S arcade of the nave.

Pevsner suggests that the carved stone at the back of the piscina may in fact be a repurposed 11^th or 12^th c. gravestone.

Font bowls with a lack of specific iconography, like the one here, are difficult to date. Pevsner does not even mention the font; but the church guide notes that the font is of 12thc. date. On the other hand, the VCH notes that part of the one of the font legs, the upper section of the NE one today, is original and of 13thc. date. However, the delicacy of the design of this leg fragment is in complete tension with the simple, perhaps even incomplete, rough (see the N side) carving of the font bowl, which suggests the legs are later additions and the bowl may indeed be 12thc.

It is probable that the arched opening in the W wall of the nave gave access to a gallery, now removed, perhaps for the convenience of bellringers.