Steyning is located on the N edge of the South Downs, 5 miles from Shoreham. The church of St Andrew, on the NE outskirts of the town, comprises a W tower, an aisled nave with a S porch, and a chancel flanked by chapels (originally chambers for the vestry and the organ). Romanesque sculpture is found in the W arches of the demolished E arm of the church and throughout in the nave. In addition, the font dates from the 12thc.

The glory of the church is the late 12thc. nave which, despite being truncated to the W, is deemed one of the finest examples in the country.

The church in Steyning is said to have been founded in the 8thc. or 9thc. by St Cuthman, and evidently operated as a minster church in the Anglo-Saxon period. It may have been the burial place of King Ethelwulf of Wessex (d.858).

Around 1047, the church and manor were granted to Fécamp Abbey in Normandy. Although Steyning was taken from Fécamp by King Harold, the grant was confirmed after the Conquest.

In 1086 Steyning was a large settlement with two churches. The present church was probably dedicated to St Cuthman at that time, although some historians have asserted that the early dedication was to St Nicholas (Bloxham 1864, 236; Zarnecki 1915, 178). The dedication to St Andrew was first recorded in 1263. The church was rebuilt on a cruciform plan by Fécamp from the late 11thc. to the late 12thc., but some writers have questioned whether this work was completed.

Steyning accommodated a small college of secular canons from the late 11thc. until the late 13thc. In 1461, the grant to Fécamp having been rescinded, the church was granted to Syon Abbey (f.1415). Around this time the S porch (originally with an upper storey) was added.

After the Dissolution the substantial E end of the church, comprising the chancel, central tower and transepts, fell into disrepair. In 1577-78 the chancel aisles and chapels were demolished; the disused chancel itself was dismantled in the 16thc., along with the crossing tower and transepts, leaving just their W arches standing. A new E wall and a W tower were erected, incorporating demolished material. The tower bears a date plaque for 1684, but this is not thought to relate to the date of its construction. A new chancel with lateral chambers had been erected by 1831, when galleries were erected between the nave piers.

In 1864 the church was restored and repewed by the architect Gordon M. Hills (Sussex Advertiser, 3 September 1864, 2). It was reported that this involved 'rebuilding' the aisles, porch and chancel arch, but the extent of the work is unclear. In 1907 the galleries were removed under the direction of the architect Mr Clayton, and the church reseated. At that time, it was reported that the surround of the S doorway was partly covered and surrounded by modern Portland cement, and the tympanum filled in with plaster (West Sussex County Times, 16 February 1907, 7). This tympanum no longer exists.

Antiquarians and historians who have written about Steyning church agree that it falls into two main architectural campaigns, the earliest comprising the (largely demolished) eastern arm of the building and the later involving the nave. There has been disagreement concerning the dating of those distinct phases.

Johnston dated the lost eastern arm of the church to c.1080-1100 (Johnston 1915, 154). The main survivals from this phase, which he assigned to c.1100, are the chancel arch, the arches at the E end of each aisle, and the E jambs of the nave arcades. Zarnecki considered Johnston’s dating of these features to be too early (Zarnecki 1951, 179, n2), and placed the completion of the eastern arm of the church about 1140. Nairn & Pevsner suggested two dates: c.1100 and (specifically for the N aisle arch, which includes chevron) c.1120 (Nairn & Pevsner 1965, 338).

By 1915 two capitals had been reset in an arch within the grounds of a large house called 'Gatewick House’, N of the church (Johnston 1915, 151). The lower part of each capital was carved with plain upright leaves and the upper part with volutes. Johnston thought that these capitals dated from the pre-Conquest church but they probably belonged to the late 11thc. campaign.

The style of the earliest sculptural elements was analysed by Zarnecki in 1951. He pointed out that one capital is carved with affronted lions, a subject which had been employed earlier at Caen and Durham, and was to become one of the most popular motifs of 12thc. sculpture. It is flanked by two foliage capitals, one based on the Corinthian order, the other based on 'Winchester Acanthus'. In neither case is the foliage fleshy; it is depicted by crotchets or curls, sometimes sprouting from one another. This feature derives from the Scandinavian Ringerike style which, as Zarnecki pointed out, can also be seen in nearby Sompting church. The Ringerike style recurs on the relief carved into the S respond shaft, showing men clambering amid foliage tendrils. The design of this panel finds close parallels in manuscripts and ivories of c.1100, but at Steyning it co-exists with motifs such as chevron which push the date forward to c.1120 at the earliest.

Locally, the closest parallels for the early sculpture at Steyning are found at Amberley church, notably the chevron and capitals of its chancel arch, which was probably created by the same masons. Zarnecki dated Amberley to c.1140.

Turning to the second major building campaign at Steyning, Johnston dated the nave, together with its clerestorey, to c.1150-1170 (Johnston 1915). Zarnecki, again considering Johnston’s dating to be too early, placed this phase between 1170 and 1180 (Zarnecki 1951, 179). This was accepted by Nairn & Pevsner (Nairn & Pevsner 1965, 338). Thurlby suggested wider date brackets: 1160-1180 (Thurlby 1991, 171). He noted that waterleaf was introduced in the second phase of the S clerestorey.

Johnston was the first to note strong similarities between the sculpture in the nave of Steyning and the chancel arch and S doorway of Winchfield (Hampshire) (Johnston 1914 and 1915). The idea that these ensembles were executed by the same team of masons has been widely accepted, with Thurlby offering the additional suggestion that the workshop was active at the Hospital of St Cross, Winchester (Thurlby 1991, 169).

The font can be compared with that of New Shoreham (especially the S face). Despite Drummond Roberts's description of it as Sussex marble, recent scholarship has confirmed that the bowl and its Victorian support are of Purbeck; recognisable by the smaller fossil shells.