Next week, backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater will introduce a Private Members' Bill to introduce assisted dying for terminally ill people.

This will be a non-government bill, usually debated on a quiet Friday when most MPs are in their constituencies, and a route that rarely leads to a change in the law. However, sometimes a bill is given time to progress – and Keir Starmer has indicated his support to enable this, although the government will take a neutral position. MPs in all parties will be given a free vote.

Of course, this is a contentious topic and I will discuss my concerns in the coming weeks. Today though I want to look at how Christians should engage with this debate.

Firstly, we all come to this with our own beliefs, assumptions and experiences. I strongly oppose the legalisation of assisted dying but some Christians take the other view, and many people with no religious faith are as uneasy about the consequences of changing the law as I am.

So we must reject the lazy assumptions of those such as the National Secular Society who have chosen to frame the debate in binary terms. They expressed support for the bill because it would "prevent those suffering from having their choices limited by other people's religious beliefs".

Their call for "compassion not dogma" instantly dismisses 'religious views' as invalid and heartless. It shuts down debate rather than engaging with nuance.

Their argument is that you can have your personal faith, but don't impose it on others. But secularism isn't neutral and no one is saying that secularists must keep their faith out of public policy! The secularist faith is that there is nothing beyond this life, no accountability and no enduring meaning. These are legitimate assumptions, but they are based on a faith, an unprovable belief, that they are true. This shows – to put it generously – a lack of self-awareness by those who believe that only people who attend a place of worship have faith.

This approach insists that people whose worldview is informed by a religious faith must not use that worldview to inform public policy ... whilst secularists are free to impose the outworkings of their faith and assumptions. I say this gently, but that's a very inconsistent position. It doesn't bear scrutiny and – I might add – it's not very liberal!

This is a hugely emotive subject. Many of us – me included – have personally experienced the suffering of loved ones from cruel and degenerative diseases, and of course we long to take this grief away. But we will not make better laws if each side digs into a tribal trench and starts hurling abuse at the other.

I want to seek some common ground for a courteous national debate that encourages curiosity and respect on all sides.

As Christians we must acknowledge that our society does not recognise authority where we do. Quoting scripture to an atheist will get us nowhere. But loving our neighbour by listening attentively, doing our utmost to understand another's point of view, I hope will.

So let's recognise that people on both sides approach the issue from a sense of compassion. Those of us opposed to changing the law are neither callous nor uncaring. And we must show respect to others, refraining from labelling their views as an easy or even wicked option.

Because we all desire dignity. Those in favour of assisted dying want to make it easier for people at the end of life to maintain self-respect in the face of pain and increasing dependence on others. This springs from a belief that we should have autonomy over our own bodies and, where possible, our own lives.

As a Christian I believe in a dignity that is even richer and deeper. Dignity that is not found only in our abilities, mental capacity or control over our lives. Dignity that springs from the belief that each individual is a deeply loved, awesome creation of the living God, made in His image and therefore with intrinsic and unconditional worth.

This debate touches the heart of what it means to be human. We do not speak much of death in our society. We are afraid of losing control over our bodies, of suffering and losing our self-worth. And without the assurance of God's love or sovereignty, people are seeking a new concept of humanity, on human terms. As Bishop Robert Baron puts it, we are seeking to be "inventors of ourselves".

But if we believe that "God has set eternity in the human heart" (Ecclesiastes 3:11), this explains why these deep concerns resonate on both sides of today's debate. We are still a deeply Christian society at heart.

This issue deserves careful, thoughtful and respectful discussion. In seeking to respond in this way, Christians can reject this debate as another outpost in the culture wars and instead place a renewed focus on the worth and deep value of each individual right to the end of their lives.

Tim Farron has been the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale since 2005 and served as the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party from 2015 to 2017. Tim is also the host of Premier's 'A Mucky Business' podcast, which unpacks the murky world of politics and encourages believers around the UK to engage prayerfully. He is the author of A Mucky Business: Why Christians should get involved in politics."