Abstract: As Christian psychologists, we have chosen a calling of being agents of transformation. For the most part, we have dedicated ourselves to a life of service, therapy, teaching, and/or understanding God's people. As stewards of the lives entrusted to us, we hope for healing, restoration, flourishing, and thriving. As such, it is important to ask, what is our goal or hope for our patients, our students, and our mentees? Happiness? Fulfillment? Well-being? Faith? The good life? How are these constructs theologically understood? Regardless of our aims or intentions, what do our techniques and methods yield in actuality? At the end of the last century, Cushman (1995) raised a valid complaint against the American psychotherapeutic movement for proliferating empty selves. The following paper offers an alternative-reciprocating selves.In our initial attempt to teach human development, my colleagues Jack Balswick and Kevin Reimer and I found ourselves at a loss when deciding what developmental theories and existing research to teach in a 10-week course on lifespan development. We were tasked with teaching all of human development-from the cradle to the grave-with a systems and contextual perspective in a graduate clinical psychology program in a Christian seminary. Needless to say, we were overwhelmed. As we wrestled with the syllabus we began to ask ourselves, "What is God's hope for human development?" Such teleological questions led us towards theology, and henceforth I proposed the concept of the reciprocating self originally based on a trinitarian theological anthropology. From these efforts, our book project, The Reciprocating Self: Theological Perspectives of Development (Baswick, King & Reimer, 2005) was born.During the writing of the first edition of The Reciprocating Self, the field of systematic theology was in a major transition-especially as it related to theological anthropology. At that time the theological zeitgeist regarding the imago Dei, or the doctrine of the image of God, was often understood from a relational perspective and less from a structural or impersonal ontological perspective. This trend started to emerge with Karl Barth in the early 1900s and gained great momentum in the latter decades of the twentieth century, with growing consensus among theologians that the uniqueness of the imago Dei was best understood through categories of relationality rather than inert structure (see Anderson, 1993; Grenz, 2001; Gunton, 2001; Shults, 2003; Tanner, 2001; Volf, 1996; Webster, 2003; Zizioulas, 1991; and others). As the second edition goes to press (Balswick, King, & Reimer, 2016), theological perspectives are once again in transition. current trends may be best understood as more expansive rather than narrowing. Thus theologians are less apt to limit the imago Dei to a single concept such as relationality, but rather inclined to include broader perspectives.The current paper serves as a theological update to our original formulation of the reciprocating self (see Balswick et al., 2005) with the primary intention to provide an integrated perspective of human development in order to offer a hopeful vision for the work of christian psychologists. As Christ's ambassadors on earth, continuing Jesus' ministry of reconciliation, healing, and flourishing, the notion of the reciprocating self offers a goal for our work with others as a means for nurturing fullness and abundance in Christ. In order to do so, I define and discuss the importance of telos and developmental teleology for Christian psychologists. Then I offer a brief overview of the relevance of the image of God as an understanding of what it means to be and become human. In the same section, I highlight particularly relevant aspects of Christological and trinitarian approaches to anthropology. The following section proposes an understanding of human telos formulated around the notion of the reciprocating self by emphasizing the importance of conformity to Christ, individual uniqueness, relatedness, and reciprocity. …